SC hit for being too ‘powerful’ over JDF
The Supreme Court. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—The vice chairman of the House of Representatives justice committee called the Supreme Court an all-too “powerful” branch of government due to its power to disburse and allocate its Judiciary Development Funds (JDF) on its own discretion.
During Tuesday’s hearing on the bills amending and repealing the JDF, Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Farinas said the high court seemed to have the power to have its own purse that is not subject to the appropriations of Congress.
Such mandate seems to be the combined powers of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government because of the court’s discretion to enforce, disburse and allocate the funds without the need for Congress’ approval, Farinas said.
“This is a very unique power – that the Supreme Court is the one enforcing, collecting and appropriating the JDF. It’s like all the functions of the three branches of government combined,” Farinas said in Filipino.
Lawmakers also questioned Sereno’s claims of “fiscal autonomy” when she snubbed Tuesday’s hearing on the JDF.
In her letter to the committee, Sereno requested the chamber to give them time to study whether or not attending the hearing about their so-called “pork barrel funds” will affect their “judicial independence” and “fiscal autonomy.”
Farinas said “fiscal autonomy” in the Constitution refers to the right of the high court for regular releases and non-reduction of funds.
But this constitutional right pertains to appropriated funds, he said.
The JDF, meanwhile, is created under Presidential Decree 1949 and is under the sole discretion of the Chief Justice alone, Farinas said.
“Walang appropriations by law dahil hindi pumasok ito sa treasury (There is no appropriations by law because this does not go to the treasury),” said Farinas, whose bill seeks to amend the PD 1949 for the remittance of all fees and collections in the judiciary to the national treasury.
Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali agreed, saying the Supreme Court seems to be exercising “judicial arrogance” when it cited a constitutional provision to their favor.
He said fiscal autonomy should not apply in this case because the JDF is “not an appropriated fund.”
“The JDF does not go to the national coffers or to the General Appropriations Act. It goes to the Supreme Court,” Umali said.
He said the Supreme Court seems to be showing “double standards” when it struck down Congress’ Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF), as well as some practices of President Aquino’s outlawed Disbursement Acceleration Program, but it could not even act on their own so-called version of the “pork barrel.”
“The practice of double standards should not be allowed,” Umali said.
The JDF, long seen as the court’s “pork barrel” funds,” is sourced from the funds collected by courts nationwide from docket and other court fees.
Presidential Decree 1949, dated July 18, 1984, created the JDF “in order to preserve and enhance the independence of the judiciary at all times and safeguard the integrity of its members,” being the lone apolitical branch of government.
Under PD 1949, 80-percent of the JDF shall be used to augment the allowances of justices, judges, and court personnel; the remaining 20-percent for office equipment and facilities.
The lower chamber is conducting a hearing over the two bills filed about JDF long after the Supreme Court scrapped Congress’ PDAF as unconstitutional. But lawmakers denied retaliating against the Supreme Court.
RELATED STORIES
Palace distances from Sereno’s snub of House probe on JDF
House already got COA report on JDF audit last March—Pulido
House hearing on JDF not retaliation to SC – solons
