Let’s come together and talk things out.
Concerned legislators on Friday called for a truce among the three branches of government, fearful that the deepening conflict between Malacañang, the Supreme Court and Congress could hurt the country.
“I think it’s time for all branches to take a step back and de-escalate the conflict. We must not forget that we are a developing country with many problems to face and interbranch squabbling is not good for the country,” said Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara.
Corona’s outburst
Still, various legislators on Friday took individual positions on the Palace-judiciary conflict, particularly in reaction to Chief Justice Renato Corona’s outburst on Thursday against Malacañang and its congressional allies for what he said was their “disrespect and lack of civility,” accusing them of trying to undermine the high court.
Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II said Corona was being too sensitive and reminded him that all public officials, including high court magistrates, are not above criticism, particularly when they make a sudden turnaround in their rulings.
He said the high court’s recall of its final ruling calling for the reinstatement of 1,400 dismissed members of the Flight Atttendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) had “ripened to speculation and suspicion.”
Saying that there was a misapplication of its internal rules, the high tribunal recently recalled the decision which should have been final and executory, for which it has come under heavy criticism from labor.
“You cannot fault anybody from suspecting that a sudden turnaround allowed the blindfolded lady symbol of justice to look the other way,” said Gonzales.
Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone proposed that the Judicial Executive Legislative Advisory and Consultative Council be convened soon to stave off a constitutional crisis and gridlock in government.
“While we respect the independence of each [of the] branches of government, there is no harm if the leaders will sit down and thresh out the issues. We cannot afford a paralysis and an escalation of conflict,” he said.
Evardone said a meeting of the tripartite body—created during the previous Arroyo administration but which has never been convened in the Aquino administration—would help all sides to clarify the issues in a sober manner, particularly the issue of the Palace threat to impound P4.97 billion of the judiciary’s budget.
Congress’ oversight
Evardone said that while he considered Corona’s distress understandable, he stressed that Congress cannot surrender its oversight functions over the high court, particularly on how it spent its budget.
“Congress should continue to exercise its oversight functions to ensure judicious and proper utilization of public funds. It is also within the mandate of the executive to prevent fund misuse,” he said.
Gonzales said he was surprised why Corona was still angry over the issue when the House had already restored the high court’s staffing budget provided that it be used only for filling up vacant positions.
Sympathy in the Senate
But Corona has found a sympathetic ear in Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who said he understood the position of the Chief Justice.
“He’s just saying ‘enough!’ and it’s true. The high court has enough power to use, to put things in line if it wants to,” Enrile said.
“It’s about time that we stop all this wrangling. It’s unfortunate that we reached this point,” he said.
The senator warned that the judiciary was powerful enough to retaliate if it chooses to.
“The court tells the entire government what the Constitution says and you cannot change it,” he said.
Enrile was also sympathetic to the Supreme Court’s beef with Malacañang over the latter’s attempt to place P4.97 billion of its budget for unfilled positions—along with that of other constitutional bodies—in a “miscellaneous personnel benefits fund” (MPBF) which would not be released unless a career position has been filled up.
“We are not, with due respect, under the executive department,” Enrile said.
Fiscal autonomy
“Especially in the case of the judiciary, it’s very clear in the Constitution (that) you cannot reduce the budget of the judicial department. They have fiscal autonomy, including the constitutional bodies,” he said.
The Palace and congressional leaders have agreed on a compromise to return the allocations to the constitutional bodies, but the agencies would still be required to submit a quarterly spending report.
Enrile said the Senate would remove this condition if it is included in the budget bill.
He said auditing should be left to the Commission on Audit.
“Let it determine whether we are committing any violation of our ethical conduct in using the money of the people. That’s not the function of the executive department,” said Enrile.
Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda insisted that the issue of the judiciary’s budget was already settled.
Abad said Congress has already moved the P4.97 billion back to the judiciary budget, under certain conditions.
Still at it
“I’m surprised over the strong words employed by Chief Justice Renato Corona in relation to the issue revolving around the unfilled items in government. This is already a settled issue,” Abad said in a statement.
Malacañang and the Supreme Court continued the exchange of words on Friday.
Critics of the Supreme Court should read its issuances first—and should read them well—before making accusations, said Jose Midas Marquez, the high court spokesperson.
He was taking particular aim at Lacierda and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.
To Lacierda, who accused Corona of using the issue of the budget cut to supposedly “sidestep” the Fasap controversy, Marquez said: “It can’t be sidestepping the issue because the Chief Justice inhibited in the case since 2008. Maybe it would be best for them to know the details before talking to media.”
To De Lima who claimed that the Fasap ruling was a case of “flip-flopping” by the high court, he said: “It would be best if they try to find out details before commenting on the case. Since they also have their own issue, it would be best to address them first before giving unsolicited advice on something they don’t really comprehend.”
Lacierda on Friday continued to harp on the issue of the recalled Fasap ruling.
“Doesn’t that erode the credibility of the Supreme Court? They are the final arbiter and it was they that said the decision was already final,” he said. With Jerome Aning and Norman Bordadora