Wheels of justice grind slow, audit of funds slower

Conclusion

To Commission on Audit (COA) Director Rizalina Mutya, head of the agency’s Cluster B that is assigned to the courts, the judiciary could well make things simpler for itself by decentralizing its budget, accounting and audit processes. Mutya said that right now, “nearly all their transactions . . . have to be reported to the head office, unlike other agencies that have regional accounting offices that could do consolidation by end of year.”

She added that most agencies agree to deliver audit reports to COA auditors by February 15, “as their Valentine’s Day gift to us,” and so that COA could meet its April 15 deadline for agency audit reports.

But Mutya said that the Supreme Court is unable to do this “so the auditors are late.”

The Supreme Court, aside from being the “court of last resort,” also acts as administrator of the lower courts.

High court personnel explain that part of the causes of delay is “about 20 budget items” that have locked the courts and the budget department in a fierce debate and have placed the Treasury in a quandary.
The root of the rift: which agency should control and disburse the funds, and how.

Pay hike for judges

Then there is the unsettled issue of whether salary increases granted in a series across the board by former President Gloria Arroyo should be billed on top or as part of the special allowance for justices and judges that another law had authorized earlier. The backpay claims of the officers of the court could amount to about a billion pesos by now, an amount not yet reflected in the 2010 budget, according to court officials.

The problem began when then President Arroyo issued Executive Order 661 (dated March 14, 2007 or two months before the elections) and Executive Order 719 (dated May 1, 2008), which authorized two successive 10-percent increases in the compensation of all civilian, uniformed and military personnel of the bureaucracy.

In 2007, Mrs. Arroyo imputed the increase on the salaries and subsistence allowance of civil servants. In 2008, she authorized it as a 10-percent increase in their “basic monthly salaries.”

The SAJ gambit

The two pay adjustments have been paid to the court rank and file but not yet the judges and justices, who are receiving what is called the SAJ, “a special allowance equivalent to the 100 percent individual basic monthly salaries under the Salary Standardization Law, granted to justices, judges, and Judiciary officials holding a similar rank.”

Created in 2003 by Republic Act 9227, or “An Act Granting a Special Allowance for Justices, Judges, and those Holding Ranks Equivalent to Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court,” the SAJ was implemented over the span of four years, spreading uniformly the special allowance in amounts equivalent to 25 percent of the basic salaries covered for each installment.

As provided by RA 9227, the surplus from the collections in excess of the amount paid to the recipients “may be used by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to grant additional allowances exclusively to other court personnel not covered by the benefits granted under the said law.” Funding for the SAJ is derived from the legal fees originally prescribed, imposed, and collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

Under the SAJ law, “such special allowance shall be considered as an advance implementation of any salary increase as may be authorized by law.” The sad result: the judges and justices had been left out in the implementation of the two 10-percent pay increases that Mrs. Arroyo had authorized in her two executive orders.

These days, judges in courts across the country are said to be grumbling over the issue, especially because of salary distortions that have been reportedly created. Said one High Court official: “Some judges have complained that their clerks of court are now better paid than they are.”

CJ’s prerogatives

Within the ambit of the general appropriations act (GAA), however, the High Court’s prerogatives over its budget have been well enshrined. The GAA enrolls “Special Provisions Applied to the Judiciary” such as:

·On organizational structure, “The chief justice is authorized to formulate and implement the organizational structure of the judiciary, fix and determine the salaries, allowances and other benefits of their personnel, “and whenever public interest so requires,” make adjustments in the Personal Services itemization to cover the transfer of item or creation of new positions in the Judiciary.”

On augmentation of any item in the court’s budget, the chief justice may authorize the presiding justices of third-level courts “to use savings from any item of their respective appropriations for maintenance, repair and improvement of their compounds and other facilities; payment of adjusted pension rates to retired justices, extraordinary expenses, commutable transportation and representation allowances and fringe benefits for justices, clerks of court and other court officials and personnel; necessary expenses for the employment of temporary employees for judicial administration; and compensation for attorneys-de-officio.

On pension rates for retired justices, the chief justice is authorized “to approve the payment of adjusted pension rates to retired justices, as revised by existing laws and administrative circulars of the High Court.

With such broad powers, the only thing left for the courts to do is to observe transparency and accountability in how it spends all the money at its command. –MALOU MANGAHAS PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM