Noy blinks; Palace won’t impound SC hiring funds

Malacañang virtually backtracked from its plan to impound billions worth of budgetary allocations for unfilled positions in government in the Judiciary and constitutional bodies in the proposed 2012 national budget.

This Palace impounding of the hiring fees of these constitutional offices has been the bone of contention between the high court with other constitutional offices, and Malacañang, which insisted on controlling their hiring budgets, on claims of transparency, while the high court insisted on the unconstitutionality of the Palace’s control of the budget for hiring personnel, saying that the Constitution mandates fiscal autonomy for the judiciary.

But Malacañang apparently blinked when push came to shove, as the chairman of the Senate finance committee, Sen. Franklin Drilon, an ally of President Aquino who toes the presidential line, yesterday said that the Senate will stick to the provisions of the law granting such privilege to the Judiciary and other constitutional bodies on the disbursement of such which is based on the principle of so-called “fiscal autonomy.”

The Speaker of the House of Representatives a day earlier had also stated the same thing.

“We will adhere to the constitutional provision which grants fiscal autonomy to the constitutional bodies and at the same time provide for transparency in the budget so that we will know through a reporting system how the

budget allocated to each agency is being spent,” the senator said during a weekly news forum in the Senate.

When Malacañang was insisting on having control of the judiciary hiring funds, Drilon, along with all the allies of Aquino in the House, claimed that there was nothing unconstitutional about the Palace controlling the judiciary’s hiring funds, as the funds would be released anyway on a pieve meal basis, as in whenever positions in the judiciary are filled.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, hearing Drilon’s statements, was no longer surprised at this development, pointing out that such scheme by Malacanang would not work as this runs contrary to the principle of the separation of powers.

“They cannot change the policy even here in the Senate. None of the three departments – Executive, Judiciary and Legislative – is lower or higher than the other. Whatever is the budget provided to us, should be released to us. It is our responsibility. Our responsibility is to the people. Our responsibility is not to, with due respect to the Palace, misuse the budget because if we do so, we can be chastised by the media, by the people and we can be charged.

“In fact I have asked the budget officer to prepare a listing of the amounts that we have returned to the general fund, that whenever we do not use any money, we do not realign any portion of the savings. We return it to the general fund,” Enrile said in a separate interview with reporters.

The executive, however, is hardly transparent, as it has never given any indication of what it does with the budget savings.

Enrile added: “I think it’s for the good of the country that we respect the Constitution and strengthen the check and balance between the three departments.”

The Senate chief said such decision only goes to show that indeed there is something wrong with the policy earlier taken by the Executive.

“It’s nothing personal to me, I’m just trying to protect the interest of the Senate in the same way the Supreme Court is protecting the interest of the Judiciary and the Constitution of the nation,” he said.

“They (Palace) cannot control the power of the Speaker and the Senate president as they cannot control the power of the president or the chief justice, to realign (the funds). They cannot put any limitation on the budget of this institution,” he pointed out.

Constitutional offices that enjoy fiscal autonomy such as the Supreme Court, Office of the Ombudsman, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, and Commission on Elections, have protested what they called “budget cuts,” saying the fund should be automatically and unconditionally released to them.

The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) had said it will release funds for state agencies in the MPBF when actual hiring of unfilled positions is done.

A total of P23.4 billion in funding requirement for 66,957 unfilled positions in the entire bureaucracy is included in a special purpose fund called the MPBF.

“We will not impinge on the fiscal independence of the constitutional agencies. But we maintain that as the guardians of the purse, we have the right require that such usage of the funds be made transparent. I would advocate strongly that there will be transparency,” added Drilon.

In the judiciary alone, Drilon noted, about P2 billion is included in the MPBF as budget for unfilled positions.

Drilon said he will “review” and consult with Budget Secretary Florencio Abad regarding a House proposal that would prevent the realignment of the MPBF to other items.

The high court now sees smooth sailing for its P15-billion budget next year.

Speaking to reporters, Court administrator Midas Marquez said the judiciary welcomed the decision of the leadership of the House of Representatives to no longer transfer the P1.98 billion from the Judiciary’s proposed 2012 budget to the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund. Marquez questioned the House’s move to require the judiciary to use the contested portion of the budget for filling up vacancies in courts nationwide.

“I hope when it (proposed budget) reaches the Senate, that footnote will be deleted. To our view, that still runs afoul to the provision of the Constitution. That’s against fiscal autonomy,” he told reporters.

The SC official said they are banking on the support expressed by the Senate President and Sen. Joker Arroyo against the earlier proposal to transfer the nearly P2 billion funds of the Judiciary to the MPBF. This, he believes, gives the judiciary high hopes that the condition of the House would be scrapped when deliberation of the proposed budget reaches the Senate and eventually the bi-cameral committee.

“Fiscal autonomy is expressly provided in the Constitution. So I hope when that goes to the Senate, the senators will move for the removal of that footnote,” he appealed.

The Judiciary originally wanted P20 billion for its budget next year. The DBM, however, cut it to P15 billion, and proposed that P2 billion of which be placed in MPBF to cover unfilled positions. This will result in an operating budget for the judiciary of about P13 billion, which is less than this year’s P14.3-billion budget.

Court employees had staged their “black Monday” protest against this budget cut.

Marquez pointed out that pushing the use of the P2 billion funds for unfilled positions in court would in fact result in the waste of public funds – especially since there already is an existing mechanism in the Judiciary that effectively handles the average of 16-percent vacancy in trial and first level courts.

“In the Judiciary, we’ve been very judicious in spending our savings. If we fill courts that don’t have cases, will that not lead to waste of the people’s money?” he argued.

Still, he stressed that courts with high caseloads are a priority when it comes to the appointment of qualified permanent judges.

Marquez reiterated that the proposed cut in the Judiciary’s budget would be a possible violation of the constitutional guarantee on fiscal autonomy of the judiciary.

“The Constitution is very clear, it is not subject to any other interpretation,” he pointed out.

He cited Section 3, Article VIII of the charter, which states: “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.” –Angie M. Rosales and Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune