House to scrutinize judiciary fund use

MANILA, Philippines - Members of the House of Representatives are cool to impeaching Supreme Court (SC) justices over the pork barrel controversy, but the lawmakers are set to scrutinize fund utilization by the judiciary.

Congressmen believe the SC encroached into territory that belonged exclusively to the legislature when the high tribunal struck down as unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), the official name of the pork barrel.

After seeing its power over the purse diminished, the House will start scrutinizing next year the multibillion-peso Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), a lump sum approprioation administered by the SC.

Iloilo City Rep. Niel Tupas, chairman of the House committee on justice, said the move aimed to reestablish the chamber’s power. The Constitution provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills must originate exclusively in the House, with the Senate allowed to propose or concur with amendments.

Tupas said the SC ruling on the PDAF “was a big blow not only to Congress but also to the people who are relying on the PDAF for educational and medical assistance.”

“Under the presidential type of government, the executive will always be powerful, but with this decision of the SC, it further weakens the legislative branch... It can sometimes embolden the members of the SC to enter into territory previously under the province of Congress,” Tupas told reporters.

He said the SC decision will not only have short-term repercussions but will also affect the institutional set-up of the three branches of government in the long term.

Tupas said if the PDAF is unconstitutional, other types of funds should also be scrutinized.

“I’m referring to the JDF, referring to the special allowances of the judges. I think it should be scrutinized, within the committee on justice, depending on the decision of the leadership of the House. We go back to accountability of public funds,” he said.

Tupas said the move was in keeping with the system of checks and balances, under which one branch of government cannot become too powerful it can trample on the jurisdiction of the other two branches.

“I can see a more assertive Congress next year when it comes to jurisdiction,” he said.

Tupas, however, downplayed calls by some of his colleagues to impeach SC justices over the PDAF ruling, saying there must be strong grounds to oust the magistrates.

The SC, which had upheld the legality of the pork barrel in previous rulings, struck down the PDAF amid public outrage over reports that billions of pesos in lawmakers’ PDAF were allegedly funneled to private accounts using bogus non-government organizations.

The ruling barred lawmakers from intervening in fund utilization after the annual national budget has been enacted into law.

Tupas headed the prosecution panel in the impeachment trial that led to the unprecedented ouster of Renato Corona as chief justice. One of the charges filed against Corona was the misuse of the JDF.

The SC has resisted proposals to inject transparency in the utilization of judiciary funds.

Tupas said the SC ruling on the PDAF affected the productivity of Congress. He said his colleagues have raised several issues, including “co-equality” among the three branches of government.

He said because of the ruling, congressional scholars will beg for funds, and a mere recommendation of a lawmaker for assistance or a project could be interpreted as post-budget enactment intervention.