The Palace-Supreme Court plot thickens - II

As earlier opined, the Palace motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court (SC) decision slapping down the Truth Commission under Executive Order 1 as unconstitutional, has very slim chance of passing through the proverbial eye of the needle. Would that be good for the nation? This question answers itself…

The 10-5 SC ruling anchored on violation of the “equal protection” clause for singling out former President GMA’s alleged graft-ridden administration. What if EO 1 be expanded to encompass other corruption transactions before GMA, would the SC change its decision? That’s the question that begs an answer.

Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr. and former CJ Hilario Davide, Jr., have justified the Truth Commission as just fact-finding and investigating body with recommendatory power for prosecution, if need be. It has no power of adjudication which is left to the courts.

Congressman Edcel Lagman and company, steadfastly maintain that EO 1 is “replete with (other) unconstitutional provisions”. Besides, the Truth Commission is a surplusage, there being the Dept. of Justice, the Ombudsman, the Commission on Audit, the PCGG, and whatever existing investigative bodies.

Besides the imbroglio on CJ Renato Corona’s appointment in clear violation of Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution that led to President Noynoy’s statement not to recognize him, the conflict appears to have developed further split. Most apparent irritant is the 2011 budget of the Judiciary when the P27 billion proposal of the SC was slashed to almost half to P14 billion by the Department of Budget and Management. The SC took umbrage that the constitutional mantra that “the Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy” has become illusory. (Section 3, Article VIII).

The “fiscal autonomy” provision is tersely vague without clear parameters to delineate it, save for the limited justifying clause that “appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislative below the amount appropriated for the previous year”. Hence, the “fiscal autonomy” seems without effect.

For many fiscal years now, the appropriations for the Courts have stayed way below one percent of the annual national budget. In 2010 it was only 0.87 percent of the national budget and, for 2011 being reduced to P14 billion, it’s of much lesser percentage when pegged at P1 trillion and more of the national government appropriation.

Seemingly justifying the P27 billion proposal, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said that since 2007, justices and judges haven’t received their full allowances set in R.A. 9227 or the Special Allowance Act. Obviously, this is the law doubling the basic monthly salary, thus increasing take-home pays of justices and judges only – leaving the Court personnel with empty allowance – and for which Congress appropriated no funds. To implement such strictly judicial privilege – employees excluded – additional sources for the JDF, like, requiring varied court fees, such as, motions for postponement, etc. have been exacted.

Incidentally, other than doubling the basic monthly salary of justices and judges, certain affluent LGUs, like, Cebu City, offered a similar scheme of allowances to the magistrates. Thus, if a given RTC judge has basic salary of P30T/month, plus P30T under RA 9227, plus P30T from the LGUs concerned, the total is a bloated P90T per month. The only additional income of Court employees depends on availability of the JDF of which the magistrates also share.

No wonder that with the slashing of the Judiciary budget for 2011 its well-informed employees don’t give a hoot at all. The alleged reaction of Judiciary personnel to protest, or be on forced leave, could be sparked randomly by inaccurate info, without knowing the widening disparity of compensation for justices/judges vis-à-vis the rank-and-file, as well as allowances and other fringe benefits and “goodies” enjoyed by appellate courts personnel but not by trial court work-force.