SENATORS, SUPREME COURT BLAST PALACE FOR REFUSAL TO DIALOG
MANILA, OCTOBER 19, 2011 (TRIBUNE) By Benjamin B. Pulta and Angie M. Rosales - Noy's mouthpieces placed on firing line!
Malacañang, particularly the spokesmen for President Aquino, received censures from senators yesterday and were accused of inflaming an already heated conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary.
Supreme Court (SC) administrator Midas Marquez wrote The Tribune yesterday questioning President Aquino's refusal to meet with Legislative and Judiciary officials concerning the budget of the Judiciary stating doubts that if such a stand really is "coming from the President himself."
"With who to meet is the President's prerogative. I just wish that the President has been fully informed of the issues, and was not given just a sanitized summary regarding the matter. After all, what we are all after is continuing judicial reforms which I understand is high on the President's agenda," Marquez wrote.
"The issue of fiscal autonomy is far from settled, contrary to what (presidential spokesmen Edwin) Lacierda and (Abigail) Valte say. Maybe settled among themselves, yes but certainly not with the Judiciary and the constitutional commissions whose respective budgets they continue to play with," he said.
Marquez added that the Executive had supposedly settled the issue by subjecting the Judiciary and the constitutional commissions to certain conditions on the use of the questioned funds, among them, "exclusively used to fill up the unfilled items," and "if not used, the funds revert to the Bureau of Treasury."
Perhaps Lacierda, Valte and others who speak out of turn, with all due respect to them, should learn as well a lesson or two in inter-branch comity and courtesy, Marquez said.
Senators also chastised Palace officials over continuing bickering with the judiciary telling off Aquino's spokesmen to engage the SC magistrates instead to a more productive undertaking, including that of holding a dialog.
Aquino's spokesmen were reminded anew to refrain from making personal opinions on issues at hand since they are not in a position to do so.
"Sometimes, they should really ponder upon issues before they issue any statements. They probably have to be reminded every now and then that they're the 'mouthpiece' of the President, that whenever they're interviewed, they are speaking for and on behalf of the President," Sen. Francis Escudero said, adding the Palace's communications team should be cautious in their pronouncements, the latest of which stirred a new round of tension and prompted Chief Justice Renato Corona to retaliate at some Malacañang officials' criticisms.
"They'd better be sure that they can always defend whatever they say and that it's really the official position of the President," he added.
While both Escudero and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago expressed belief whatever differences there may be, the Executive should initiate steps to avert any possible constitutional crisis.
Santiago, in an interview with dzBB, said the SC chief justice would likely agree to such dialog, adding that the Judicial-Executive-Legislative Advisory Council (Jelac) would serve as a proper venue.
"The Executive branch should be the one to initiate the move because if it will be initiated by the SC, it will immediately be attacked as favor-seeking, or trying to win over the Executive branch.
"The SC is a non-political branch. If it reaches out to the political branches there is always a suspicion that they have their own agenda. That is why the contemplation under the constitution is that they should always be outside the political boundaries, it has its own space and any initiatives should come from the Executive branch so that it will be free from any suspicion of being politicized," she said.
Although the tension between the Judiciary and the Executive supposedly stemmed from the impounding of some funds of SC for unfilled positions in the 2012 budget, Santiago pointed out that the argument is still whether this could affect fiscal autonomy of the likes of the high tribunal.
"There is no clear demand that the SC should surrender its fiscal autonomy. The SC is not saying we want to reduce the fiscal autonomy of the Supreme Court. We don't even know if the two branches are really in disagreement. Maybe there is just a misunderstanding of the language employed. So I would say that a constitutional crisis is very far off the horizon.
Marquez cited in his letter Section 3, Art. VIII of the Constitution with regards the Judiciary (and Section 5, Article IX A, for the constitutional commissions) which he said is "as clear as a sunny day."
"If that is not still clear to them, let me remind them what a two decade-old jurisprudence teaches us, which lawyers Lacierda and Valte should have known, had they been doing their assignment — which is as envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require," Marquez noted.
He added the provision recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions.
The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the SC, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. In the interest of comity and cooperation, the SC, the constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman have so far limited their objections to constant reminders, Marquez wrote.
"Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control," Marquez said, adding that the Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman must have independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties.
"In the interest of comity and cooperation, the Supreme Court, the constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman have so far limited their objections to constant reminders," he noted.
But pursuant to the constitutional mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated to it in the appropriations law, Marquez said.
"It knows its priorities just as it is aware of the fiscal restraints. The Chief Justice must be given a free hand on how to augment appropriations where augmentation is needed," he added.
"Now, are not the imposed conditions "exclusively used to fill up the unfilled items," and "if not used, the funds revert to the Bureau of Treasury" violative of fiscal autonomy?" Marquez asked.
This decision was promulgated by the SC way back in 1992, long before Chief Justice Corona became an associate justice of the court.
"Are we going to allow the Executive and Legislative Departments to change this now — just because PNoy is President and Corona whom they do not like as Chief Justice is Chief Justice? Has the Supreme Court ceased to be the final interpreter of the Constitution? Don't you think it is time to move on, and for the three branches of government to work together for national development?" he appealed.
Marquez pointed out that the present constitutional structure holds the Judiciary and the constitutional commissions always accountable within the legal system and to the broader political spectrum.
"Transparency and accountability have always reigned as guaranteed by constitutional safeguards through the Commission on Audit, at the very least, as all government agencies have regularly reported their expenditures to the Commission on Audit, pursuant the usual auditing and accounting rules. The imposition of new conditions thus is nothing but an insidious attempt to control and undermine the independence of these agencies," he said.
Under the principle of separation of powers, neither the Congress, the President, nor the Judiciary can impinge on fields allocated to the other branches of government. "While the allocation of the State's resources belongs to Congress, subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the allocation of constitutional boundaries belongs to the court. The court will never shirk the duty the Constitution has conferred to it," the SC official vowed.
"I do not think that we in the Judiciary are being over sensitive. We have been in government long enough to know how to address issues, like we in a separate co-equal branch of government know when to comment and when not to comment on issues raised against another branch of government within their territory. We just want to let them know that their persistent uncalled for and baseless comments, including devious plans to distort the Constitution are not unnoticed and will be addressed at the appropriate time," Marquez said.
Earlier, Corona had bewailed the "insidious attempts to undermine and destroy even the independence of the judiciary."
"Enough is enough!" Corona said, in his keynote speech before the convention of the Philippine Judges Association (PJA) in Makati City.
"The judiciary has no power of the sword nor power of the purse, but it will not hesitate to use the power of the pen to strike down what is illegal, unconstitutional and patently immoral," the chief magistrate warned.
The Chief Justice described these "insidious attempts" as those "forcing us to beg for the funds guaranteed to us by the Constitution or the repeated threats of impeachment based on distorted and power-tripping interpretation of 'beach of public trust.'"
Corona's statement came after the Executive department cut the P20 billion proposed budget of the judiciary for 2012 to only about P15.6 billion, and P2 billion of which would be impounded for the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF).
There were also threats to file impeachment complaints against the SC justice for its ruling in the cityhood of 16 municipalities and its recall of the resolution on the finality of the decision on the illegal dismissal by the Philippine Airlines (PAL) in 1998 of its more than 1,400 flight attendants and stewards.
"When the judiciary, particularly the principle of judicial supremacy, is challenged, that is when there is Constitutional crisis. Otherwise, minor disagreements in details, particularly of procedure are merely executive in nature, can be easily overcome by dialogue or negotiation," she said.
Santiago, however, emphasized that given the provision in the constitution guaranteeing fiscal autonomy to the judiciary, it should be respected by the Executive.
Escudero said the matter of constitutional crisis setting in is not remote if Malacañang will insist on its position on the matter of requiring periodic reporting on the use of the proposed P2.2 billion MPBF by the judiciary in the 2012 national budget.
"I was told recently by (SC administrator Midas) Marquez that they do conduct quarterly reporting before the CoA, not to Malacañang (over the use of such fund). Probably in the future, any disagreement over this matter can be addressed if only Malacañang would request for a copy of the report, since its a public document, submitted to CoA. They cannot ask the SC directly because it would be an affront from the point of view of the SC magistrates," he said.
(Chief Justice) Corona was right in saying that they don't have the power of the sword, the purse but they do have the power of the pen. Our Constitution was designed in such a way that there should always be co-equal branches of government, that will act as a check and balance on each branch," he explained.
Escudero, in a separate interview over at dzBB, lambasted deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte for saying that there is no need to convene Ledac if only to resolve whatever issues they have with the judiciary.
"That's rather unfortunate to hear since I'm one of those who called for the convening of Jelac. We could resolve a lot of issues and save time if only there's a venue where concerned parties will be able to thresh out differences amicably. If the Executive could exert so much effort and spend time to sit down and talk with the communists and rebels, I wonder why they do not find it a worthwhile activity in engaging the SC magistrates to a dialog," he said.
The House of Representatives yesterday reiterated that it is not going to allow the SC to keep excess funds allotted for unfilled positions in the judiciary.
According to Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya, chairman of the House committee on appropriations, the House is going to maintain a provision in the national budget that would tie the hands of the justices in using the funds for purposes other than those which ware specified in the budget.
The funds, kept under the MPBF, amounting to almost P2-billion has been allotted for unfilled positions on the judiciary. According to the lawmakers, the funds would remain part of their allotment but would be released as soon as the vacant positions are filled.
According to Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales II constitutional bodies including the SC should justice the use of these funds.
Gonzales maintained that releasing the whole amount allotted to the government agencies could be prone to abuse.
"If you have a total of 1000 positions and you fill up only the 500, what are you going to do with the funds allotted for the other 500 unfilled positions?" Gonzales said.
Under the proposed national budget for 2012 there is a special provision that mandates the Judiciary to "exclusively" use its almost P2-billion funds under the MPBF for the purpose of unfilled positions and to submit a quarterly report to Congress and Malacañang about the progress of filling up of the vacant positions.
Abaya said he is mandated and determined to defend the House of Representatives' version should the Senate decide not to carry the special provision aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability in the disbursement of public funds during the bicameral conference on the proposed budget.
He said they will await the position of the Senate on the matter after SC Chief Justice Renato Corona blasted Malacañang and Congress for "disrespect and lack of civility" during last Thursday's annual convention of the Philippine Judges Association at the New World Hotel due to the special provision and over the sharp criticisms it has been receiving over a recall of one of its rulings involving a labor dispute in the PAL.
"They (senators) should take a stand on what in the policy they'll be putting on the table. When bicameral comes, we will convince them to follow our version while they'll convince us to follow theirs. I'm sure though that this will be highly coordinative effort," said Abaya in a telephone interview.
"The General Appropriation Bill voted on third reading is the House's version and ideally I'm duty bound to defend it. We await the wisdom of the Senate," Abaya added. Gerry Baldo
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------
