Palace-Supreme Court word war heats up

Supreme Court spokesperson and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

The word war between Malacañang and the judiciary is definitely far from over.

“The issue of fiscal autonomy is far from settled, contrary to what (presidential spokesperson Edwin) Lacierda and (Abigail) Valte say,” said Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez Monday, adding that the conditions the Aquino administration set on the use of the judiciary budget was unconstitutional.

“Maybe settled among themselves, yes. But certainly not with the judiciary and the constitutional commissions whose respective budgets they continue to play with,” Marquez said in a statement.

Marquez accused Malacañang of trying to “control and undermine” the judiciary’s independence.

“They have supposedly settled the issue by subjecting the judiciary and the constitutional commissions to certain conditions on the use of the questioned funds.

“This is an express violation of the constitutional provisions on fiscal autonomy,” he said.

“If that is not still clear to them, let me remind them what a two decade-old jurisprudence teaches us, which lawyers Lacierda and Valte should have known, had they been doing their assignment,” he said.

Marquez cited a 1992 Supreme Court ruling which said that the “imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy.”

The ruling declared these restrictions are “violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based.”

“This decision was promulgated by the Supreme Court way back in 1992, long before Chief Justice Renato Corona became an associate justice of the court. Are we going to allow the executive and legislative departments to change this now—just because P-Noy (Aquino) is president and Corona, whom they do not like as chief justice, is chief justice?” Marquez said.

Marquez said he was not certain about the President’s reported refusal to meet with legislative and judiciary officials on the budget issue.

“If that is so, that is fine, but unfortunate. With whom to meet is the President’s prerogative. I just wish that the President has been fully informed of the issues, and was not given just a sanitized summary regarding the matter,” Marquez said.

On the issue of fund accountability, Marquez said the judiciary and the constitutional commissions were already reporting their expenditures to the Commission on Audit to ensure transparency.

“While the allocation of the state’s resources belongs to Congress, subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the allocation of constitutional boundaries belongs to the court. The court will never shirk the duty the Constitution has conferred on it,” Marquez said.

Marquez also denied insinuations that the Supreme Court was being “oversensitive” or “onion skinned” about the criticism being thrown its way.

“I do not think that we in the judiciary are being oversensitive. We have been in government long enough to know how to address issues, like when to comment and when not to comment on issues raised against another branch of government within their territory,” Marquez said.

“Perhaps Lacierda, Valte and others who speak out of turn, with all due respect to them, should learn as well a lesson or two in inter-branch comity and courtesy,” Marquez added.

Reacting to Midas’ attacks, the Palace spokesperson said that the Malacañang saw no reason to hold a dialogue with the judiciary over the controversy on the proposed budget for next year, saying the matter was for Congress to settle.

“(Congress) is the one that is going to approve or disapprove the budget. So that is something that we leave to the legislative branch, Lacierda said.

As for Marquez’s request for President Aquino’s spokespersons to tone down their statements against the high court, Lacierda countered: “It was only when Chief Justice Corona decided to attack the executive branch for allegedly undermining the judiciary that we decided to say, teka mali yata iyon at bakit biglang nagpuputok ang butse ni Chief Justice Corona sa isang issue na tapos na (wait a minute, it seems wrong for Chief Justice Corona to fly off the handle on an issue that is already settled). With a report from Christine  Avendano

Originally posted: 3:41 pm | Monday, October 17th, 2011