MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court, which lawmakers hailed for its "judiciary activism," is batting for a of P7.47-billion budget increase for 2022, which would put the Judiciary's funds for the next year at around P52 billion.
In the House of Representatives budget hearing on Tuesday, Court Administrator Midas Marquez said they sought a budget of P67.27 billion for 2022, but only P44.98 billion was included in the National Expenditure Program submitted that the executive branch submitted to the House of Representatives.
Related Stories
This amount is lower than Judiciary's P45.31-billion budget in 2021, Marquez, who represented the Judiciary at the budget hearing, said.
This would be in violation Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution, he pointed out.
That section 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."
Marquez said that instead of batting for the grant of the full P67.27-billion proposed budget, they are asking lawmakers to reconsider adding P7.47 billion funds for the Judiciary, "considering the pandemic and all the expenses of the government." This would put the Judiciary's budget for 2022 at around P52 billion.
Marquez said that if their motion for reconsideration for an addition P7.47 billion fees will not be granted, the Judiciary’s operations will be hampered. It may also affect the conduct of videoconferencing hearings, which have allowed courts to continue operations amid physical closure during lockdowns, as the Judiciary pays for the licensing of its platforms.
He added that the funds would also be used for salaries of judges-at-large in first and second level trial courts and the courtrooms that they are renting. This is following the signing of Republic Act 11459 creating the positions of judges-at-large to help decongest dockets.
Part of the budget increase will also fund the creation of new positions for the Judicial Integrity Board, the body constituted to act on administrative complaints against justices and employees of the Judiciary.
Judicial activism
The Judiciary’s proposal to increase its budget for 2022 largely drew support from the lawmakers.
Rep. Carlos Zarate (Bayan Muna party-list) also cited the Judiciary’s work, saying that SC’s issuance of rules on the use of body cameras in the implementation of warrants is “long overdue,” due to reported extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests.
Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro) also heaped praises for the SC, currently led by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, "for having judicial activism."
He noted Gesmundo’s directive for justices and judges to resolve cases within two years, the promulgation of rules on the use of body cameras in the implementation of warrants, and the clipping of power of judges to authorize them to only issue search warrants within their judicial region.
"We should reward the SC instead of reducing its budget," Rodriguez said.
READ: SC now requires law enforcers to wear body cameras in implementation of warrants
But Rodriguez, during his interpellation, raised the SC’s supposed "inaction" in Mindanao, particularly in Cagayan de Oro.
The CDO representative pointed out that it has been six years since the Hall of Justice in their city burned down and yet no structure has been built to replace it.
"How come there is no one cubic meter... built in CDO to serve justices in our city?" Rodriguez said.
Marquez explained that the SC is planning to build a judicial complex in Cagayan de Oro and they are in the process of procuring services of consultations for the project.
But Rodriguez said the court administrator gave a "totally unacceptable answer" and warned that he will not support the Judiciary’s push for additional budget as it had "forgotten" about Mindanao.
Search warrants and protective writs
During the budget hearing, Zarate also raised the issue of courts accused of serving as "search warrant factories," that progressive groups said have been used to target activists.
The lawmakers said the accused would report difficulties in obtaining records from the court that issued the search warrants when challenging its validity before a separate court where the charge had been filed.
Marquez said that they will soon promulgate a circular stating that courts resolving an accused’s motion to quash the search warrant must subpoena records from the court that issued the warrant.
In the recently promulgated rules on body cameras, the SC limited the powers of judges to issue search warrants only within their judicial region.
Zarate also sought updates on Marquez’s commitment before the House in 2020 that the SC will review the rules on the writs of amparo and habeas data.
The court administrator said that while they have raised this with then-Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, the pandemic and the early retirement of the top judge affected this. Marquez said this however may be taken up by the tribunal’s Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court.
The writ of kalayaan, introduced by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen for prisoners in the 2020 Almonte v. People case, may also be taken up the SC’s Committee on Human Rights.
Zarate stressed: "We cannot overemphasize the need for these protective writs, especially amid the grave violations on human rights."
Facing the members of the media in June, Chief Justice Gesmundo said that the SC is reviewing the rules on the writs. He added that the high court "will adopt rules as the exigencies require in order that these constitutionally-guaranteed rights are fully protected."
The House committee then moved to terminate the hearing on the Judiciary’s proposed budget. It will be tackled again in plenary.