Judiciary’s reform policies different from ours – Palace

MANILA, Philippines - In a not so subtle way, Malacañang has demonstrated how the judiciary has been secretive in its policies that run counter to that of the executive department, where the Palace said transparency and accountability prevail.

“At the very least in the executive branch, we have always been transparent with what we do, with what we implement,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda told a news briefing on Wednesday.

“The Supreme Court (SC) may have a different take on it. I’m not familiar with what their take is on this matter, on the JDF (Judiciary Development Fund),” he added.

Lacierda made the comparison between the executive department and the judiciary as the two branches of government have been at loggerheads over the government’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), parts of which the Supreme Court (SC) recently declared as unconstitutional.

The Palace spokesman also cited the reform measures the Aquino administration has initiated and related this with the recent refusal of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno to attend an inquiry by the House of Representatives that seeks to investigate the use of the JDF.

Earlier, SC justices turned down a request from Bureau of Internal Revenue commissioner Kim Henares for them to furnish the executive department a copy of each of their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), explaining that the documents have been updated and posted on the SC website.

“There will always be issues, for instance, on transparency. We have a different interpretation on the request for SALN… For instance, we in the executive branch would submit our SALN to the Office of the President and submit it to the Office of the Ombudsman and we publish it. At least we inform the public,” Lacierda said.

“Insofar as the SC is concerned, they have a different take. Like for instance, denying the request of PCIJ (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism) as well as the request of BIR commissioner Kim Henares on the SALN,” he added.

For its part, the House committee on justice said that Sereno and other SC magistrates should not wait to be forced to testify at the congressional inquiry into the use of the JDF.

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., chairman of the panel, said it would be better if Sereno heeds the invitation of the committee to answer questions on allegations that the JDF was misused, an impeachable offense according to administration congressmen.

“I don’t want to compel (Sereno), we can proceed without them but that’s not good because it’s as if all government agencies follow the law and there’s one government branch that’s above the law,” he said.

The committee sent a second invitation to Sereno and her subordinates after she snubbed the initial hearing into the JDF last Tuesday. The second invitation came as the SC has yet to rule on the motion for reconsideration of Malacañang on its decision declaring the DAP unconstitutional.

Tupas said this was the first time in his four years as chairman of the panel that members of the SC or their representatives did not attend a hearing on measures related to the judicial branch.

Sereno earlier wrote Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. to explain that she and her representatives declined to attend the hearing because it was “premature” and “inappropriate.”

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga said the absence of Sereno or her representatives could be taken by the panel as a “waiver” of their right to participate in the hearings.

Meanwhile, independent and opposition lawmakers said it was obvious that the investigation into the JDF was meant to pressure the SC into overturning its unanimous ruling on the DAP and to also get back at the magistrates for the high court’s decision declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as unconstitutional.

But Tupas maintained the inquiry was meant to help the SC properly manage the JDF, adding that the hearing was about two pending bills: one seeking to amend Presidential Decree 1949 which created the fund, and the other seeking to repeal the law.

PD 1949, issued in July 1984, mandates that at least 80 percent of the JDF shall be given to employees of the judiciary by way of cost of living allowance and not more than 20 percent of the fund shall be used for office equipment and other facilities.

Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, vice chairman of the panel, warned that Sereno and other justices could be impeached if found to have misused the JDF.

But Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, leader of the independent bloc, said Sereno should be accorded respect as she has the prerogative to skip the hearing if she thinks this was just meant to exact revenge on her and her colleagues.

‘Respect judiciary’

Meanwhile, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president Archbishop Socrates Villegas last Friday called for respect for the SC.

“For the judiciary to be fair, it must be free, and it cannot be free if its members are harassed by threats and intimidation and if those who serve on the bench and as personnel of the court must be in constant dread of a diminution in benefits and privileges,” Villegas said in a statement.

“We urge respect for the judiciary, precisely because it does not have the means to defend itself. We urge it also for the sake of the nation that must always hold its judiciary in highest regard and esteem. The courtesies that are due the heads of the government’s coordinate branches should, at all times, be maintained and the independence of the judiciary preserved,” he said. – With Paolo Romero, Evelyn Macairan