Judiciary fiscal autonomy appears illusory

Under the check and balance principle among the executive, legislative, and judiciary, it’s the budget allocation, for one, that the legislative “checks” the judiciary. For that matter, the “axe” may also fall on national offices with appropriations in the national budget.

 Department heads or their fiscal officers attend Lower House budgetary hearings and “grilled” on their budget proposals. Woe unto those who earn the “ire” of any Congressman even beyond his normal concern, the department head kowtows to his whims.

 As regards the Supreme Court, the Lower House which initiates appropriations, is constricted and also “checked” by the constitutional provision: “The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy” Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution further enforces that: “Appropriation 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.”

 For the 2012 Judiciary budgetary appropriation, the Department of Budget and Management moved to reduce the Supreme Court proposed budget of P27.1 B to less than half of P13.396 B. Such radical slashing and “transferring the allocation for unfilled positions” in the Judiciary to the “miscellaneous personnel benefit fund (MPBF) under the “control of the Office of the President” is violative of the fiscal autonomy. It puts the Supreme Court at the mercy of the Executive. Moreover, the DBM proposal also violates the ban that the annual judiciary budget shall not be below the preceding year’s allocation.

  Such irregular ploy to clamp on the SC’s fiscal autonomy, led the employees of the SC and Court of Appeals to hold a protest action, and of court employees outside the national capital region (NCR) on “Black Monday” protest as well.

  The MPBF under Executive control is further “politicizing” the hiring of judges and court employees who may fill up vacant positions whose allocations depend on the control of the president. Under the present set-up, the Palace exercises “political” control in the appointment of all members of the Bench. While the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) recommends three nominees, in actual practice the nominee with the strongest “political” backer gets the Palace nod. It doesn’t matter that among the three nominees, one nominee may excel in qualifications and/or performance if he doesn’t have a political endorser with Palace “connections”.

  The present courts nationwide – except in some affluent chartered cities that have provided air-conditioned court offices and salas – the antiquated hard benches and decrepit facilities woefully mean discomfort. Since all courts are of record, bond paper and stationery are often wanting.

 With the slashing proposed by DBM, the Judiciary is also under its “control”. The SC budget does not only serve the incumbent judges. In the belated implementation of the law, the retired judges who ought to have long received the same compensation as the incumbents, only received the adjustment this year.

 If one recalls right that the 2012 proposed national budget is over P1.8 trillion pesos, the DBM proposed P13.396 billion pesos, is just a mote mathematical percentage.

It has become a cruel joke between a radio blocktimer and his partner that court salas and courtrooms are so antiquated, suffocating, and ugly sight. They taunt that old electric fans hardly “fan”; court benches “nga makasugsog sa lubot”; repository of old records are like old “museum”, office tables and chairs almost dilapidated; and, judges’ rostrums tottering and a tattered Philippine flag, insult the theoretical dignity of the court as the dispenser of justice.

 The courts need huge funds for rehab and, with the Judiciary budget set at barest minimum, the independence of the judiciary as the third equal branch of government appears illusory, if not a cruel joke.