‘Courts should not get aid from LGUs’

MANILA, Philippines - Lower courts should stop receiving financial assistance from local government units (LGUs) if the Supreme Court will classify such disbursements as “cross-border” transfer of funds prohibited under its recent ruling against the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. said LGUs are now in a quandary as to whether they should stop augmenting the budgets of courts in their jurisdiction or local offices constitutional bodies like the Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit.

“There has to be a clarification from the Supreme Court because no one would want to be held criminally liable for simply trying to help the judiciary meet its financial needs and ease some of its burden,” Barzaga said.

“The financial assistance from LGUs go a long way in constructing courtrooms and buildings, augmenting the allowances to judges, procuring computers and office supplies and paying casual workers assigned to courts. Will these constitute cross-border transfers now?” he asked.

In its ruling on DAP, the SC declared the cross-border transfers of savings of the executive department to offices outside its branch as illegal and unconstitutional.

Allies of the President in Congress have started suggesting to scrap the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and there are reports that they will investigate over P1 billion in judiciary funds when the second regular session of the 16th Congress opens at the end of the month. Two administration lawmakers had filed separate proposals to abolish the JDF.

In his national address last Monday, President Aquino announced his decision to file a motion for reconsideration in response to the SC ruling, pointing out the high tribunal might have overlooked the necessity of DAP and the benefits that the country reaped with the use of such mechanism.

In his televised address on Monday and his speech during the Daylight Dialogue with the World Bank on Tuesday to discuss challenges of good governance, some hints were given as to how the President viewed the SC decision on the DAP beyond what was constitutional or legal.

“There are those who say that this decision might be a personal vendetta against me – that I am being dared to act in the same vindictive manner against them. All I can say – as the President, as the father of this country – is that we need temperance and forbearance – we must comply with due process,” Aquino said without elaborating on why the decision could be a vendetta. – With Aurea Calica, Edu Punay