IBP takes stand on exhorbitant judicial fees

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has deemed it proper to take a strong stand on the controversial fee-raising binge by the judiciary on the matter of the filing fees and fees for other judicial services and has taken the cudgels for the litigants and the public in general. Following are excerpts from the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution:

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the laudable purpose for which these legal fees shall be used, the members of the Bar, present litigants, the business sector and the public in general, find the new rates of legal fees exorbitant and prohibitive; WHEREAS, (such) fees will have the adverse effect of discouraging aggrieved parties to seek judicial remedies for their complaints, and making them bear and suffer their grievances in silence; WHEREAS, aside from the issue of reasonableness of the filing fees, there is the question of the constitutionality and propriety of the method resorted to by Congress in sourcing the principal funding of the increase in compensation of the members of the judiciary by authorizing an increase in the filing fees and the imposition of new ones, instead of sourcing it from taxes;

The IBP Board of Governors resolved to:

Ask the Supreme Court to suspend the effectivity of the rates imposed under A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, consistent with the constitutional mandate not to deny any person free access to the courts by reason of poverty;

Request the Supreme Court for a dialogue with the Governors and officers of the IBP;

Ask Congress to amend RA 9227 to achieve its avowed purpose of increasing the compensation of members of the Judiciary by allocating funds therefore from the general funds generated from taxes and appropriating the same in the annual national budget, instead of imposing the financial burden upon litigants;

The IBP is led by Jose Anselmo Cadiz, Chairman and National President, and Leonard S. De Vera, Vice-Chairman and Executive Vice-President.

To clarify, the increase in legal fees is not confined to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). It is a sweeping overhaul of the fee structure for all judiciary-related services. The fee structure of the CTA, however, happens to the most onerous. The other judicial services the fees for which have also been substantially increased include motions for postponements and extensions, sheriff’s services, BAR examination, mediation, certificate of marriage, publication of legal notices.

Unlike the fee for appeals to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan for which a flat amount of P3,000 is charged, the CTA is the only appellate court which uses the progressive rates (based on the amount of the assessment and without any cap) which can go up to millions of pesos per appeal. In fact, there is a taxpayer which recently had to pay a whopping P9-million filing fee.

Judicial Development Fund

It seems that the CTA has been designated as the convenient fund-raiser for the Judicial Development Fund (JDF). Approximately, 80 percent of the CTA fees go to the JDF and only the balance of 20 percent represents docket fees. This means that the unfortunate recipients of tax assessments are made to shoulder the burden of subsidizing the services of other courts which have nothing to with their cases.

Houdini style of budgeting and appropriation

Instead of resorting to shortcuts or sleight-of-hand style of lawmaking, particularly in discharging its "power of the purse", Congress should follow the constitutionally-prescribed process of budgeting and appropriation. How about a crash course for members of Congress on the basics of lawmaking .

Legal dilemma

Legal practitioners are in a dilemma whether it would be proper (after the Supreme Court has implemented the questionable law) to question before the Supreme Court the constitutionally of RA 9277 which authorizes the Supreme Court to increase filing fees.

Practioners find it unfortunate that the High Court, as the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional and legal, may have overlooked, in the first instance, to address the constitutional flaw of RA 9227, before implementing it. It is reasonable to assume that before its enactment, prior consultations were conducted between Congress and the Supreme Court.

Judiciary’s version of ‘Pork’?

In two previous articles (Unconsionable CTA Filing Fees and Backdoor Taxation (Taxes Disguised as Fees), Aug. 10 and 24, 2004 issues of the The Philippine STAR), we discussed the controversial increase in the filing fees for appeals to the CTA. We received several strong reactions via text and telephone, all of which suggest an apparent similarity between the congressional pork barrel and what they regard as the judiciary’s own version of the "pork".