Judiciary protests, marks ‘Black Monday’

PALACE SCRAMBLES, VOWS DIALOG

The hostile relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive is expected to come to a head today as court employees hold a “Black Monday” protest today against plans of the Palace to dip its hands into the budget of the judicial branch under the miscellaneous personnel benefit fund (MPBF) item in the national budget for next year that the Office of the President will have discretion on.

Malacañang tried to head off the nationwide protest, saying that a dialog between the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the judiciary has been scheduled to settle differences between the two branches of government over the budget.

In a statement, the Judiciary Employees Association of the Philippines (Judea) said court employees will wear black shirts and armbands today and on every Monday to show their opposition to the Palace move of impounding the judiciary’s budget.

The MPBF is a source of conflict in the budget since it reduced the judiciary’s budget for next year to P13.4 billion while juggling the budget for unfilled positions to the MPBF.

Deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte said Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad is expected to handle the situation.

Valte said Abad is open to work with the judiciary on the matter, adding that last year, the DBM came up with a compromise with judges on the issue of salaries and allowances.

Senators had said that the unprecedented item in the budget appears to violate the principle of separation of powers in government.

Chief Justice Corona in a speech before the Society for Judicial Excellence said, without referring to the Palace move, tjat judicial independence “are being severely tested” at this time.

He remarked that “it has recently been a controversial subject of heated debate and discussion, and even of growing protests, that the salaries of judges and other court employees are being prejudiced by budget cuts and other ways to curtail judicial independence.”

He also cited “the never-ending threats of impeachment.”

“It was one thing for the men and women of our courts to struggle against the blatant attempts to impose authoritarian control on the judiciary during the Martial Law years. It is quite another today, however, to ensure a balance between the unimpeded performance of our functions and the need to assure our people that justice is being dispensed even-handedly to all,” Corona said.

He said while it is true that an active and involved citizenry is essential in nurturing a healthy and vibrant constitutional democracy, “we must also remember that mob-like intervention, clamor, and pressure, when taken to the extreme, can be just as dangerous as despotic rule, at least insofar as its capacity to obstruct the free, independent, and impartial exercise of judgment is concerned,” he noted.

Corona said, without giving specifics, that “there is a tyranny of a despot, so can there be a tyranny of the mob, the former having the advantage of a veil of legitimacy that the latter so obviously lacks.”

Judea said the impounding of the judiciary’s budget have the likely purpose of placing the judiciary under the control of the Palace.

The statement said this could also be construed as part of a move to control the courts, especially after the recent defeat of several Malacañang initiatives in the Supreme Court.

The group was referring to Executive Orders (EOs) creating the Truth commission and more recently an EO seeking to postpone the elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which were all rejected by the Tribunal.

Judea said the budget allocation for the judiciary, a coequal branch of government, should be automatically released.

The diversion of P2 billion in judiciary funds to be controlled by Malacanang is unconstitutional, Court Administrator and spokesman Jose Midas Marquez had said.

He cited Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution requires fiscal autonomy for the judiciary.

“The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year, and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.” Marquez said, quoting the provision in the 1987 Constitution.

Malacanang earlier included the provision to divert P1.98 billion in the national budget to the MPBF.

“There’s always the Constitution. We have to go back to fundamental law and try to find out what the Constitution says. The Constitution is as clear as day when it comes to fiscal autonomy and non-reduction of the budget of the judiciary,” Marquez said and added that the Constitution also mandates that the judiciary’s budget shall not be lower than the previous budget.

The judiciary’s current budget for this year is P14.3 billion.

Marquez said the DBM should fulfill its promise to the judicial branch that the diverted fund would still form part of the overall budget of the judiciary.

“We’d like to believe budget of the judiciary remains at P15 billion. However, of course, that remains to be seen once the GAA (General Appropriations Act) is approved and signed into law come 2012. We will find out if really that forms part of budget of the judiciary.”

Judges groups earlier expressed dismay over the reduction in the judiciary’s proposed budget for 2011, to P14.65 billion from the proposed P27.1 billion.

More congressmen see the unconstitutionality of the budget proviso giving Malacanang total control over the hiring funds of the judiciary as well as other constitutional offices.

Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco yesterday protested the inclusion of appropriations intended for the Judiciary including the SC, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and all other courts; Commission on Audit (CoA), Commission on Elections (Comelec); Civil Service Commission (CSC); and the Office of the Ombudsman in the MPBF under the 2012 GAA for being in violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

In a statement, Tiangco said the Constitution is very explicit in providing for fiscal autonomy for said offices as stated in Section 3 Article VIII, Section 5 Article IX and Section 14 Article XI, respectively, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

“The provisions are in very simple and clear English and clearly, the grant of fiscal autonomy to these agencies is to ensure their independence from the Executive Department,” Tiangco stressed.

“The full amount of about P 4.653 billion intended for these constitutional offices transferred to the MPBF should be fully returned to these respective offices. They (Malacanang) tried to control Congress through the release of the priority development assistance fund (PDAF) of the congressmen, now they want to control the five agencies through the MPBF,” said Tiangco as he appealed to his colleagues not to allow the Executive get away with the MPBF as it did with the impeachment case against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and the bill to postpone the ARMM elections that allows PresidentAquino to appoint officers-in-charge for the region.

Before Congress voted on the two issues, text messages were circulated among members of the House threatening them that their PDAFs would be withheld should they vote against the two measures.

Tiangco refused to be bullied and voted against the two measures and suffered the consequence as his PDAF was deliberately withheld by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

“The threat of impeachment of the Supreme Court Justices would appear to be a premature bullying tactic and also shows the real intention of the MPBF.” said Tiangco.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman has come up with a “win-win solution” to avoid a head-on collision between the Executive, the administration-led House and the SC.

In a statement, Lagman proposed that the MPBF be reverted to the funds for unfilled positions to the Judiciary, Congress and Constitutional Commissions but rein its utilization by special provisions.

Lagman proposed this compromise solution to diffuse the looming confrontation among the SC, the Presidency and the Congress on Malacañang’s inclusion in the MPBF of the appropriations for unfilled positions which were traditionally components of the respective Personal Service (PS) budgets of the co-equal departments and constitutional bodies which enjoy fiscal autonomy.

In a letter dated Sept. 2011, to Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya, concurrent chairman of the Appropriation Committee and the small committee tasked with effecting amendments to HB No. 5023 or the General Appropriations Bill (GAB), Lagman proposed that the “funds for unfilled positions in the Judiciary, Congress and Constitutional Commissions shall be reverted to the respective PS outlays of the subject agencies”, but adopting “special provisions to assure transparency, proper utilization and non-diversion of funds.”

If the Lagman proposed amendment is approved, the subject funds will be regularly and automatically released but subject to special provisions.