Supreme Court defends judiciary fund, but won’t stop abolition bid

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has defended anew the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) but dismissed a taxpayer’s petition asking the high court to stop the House of Representatives from passing two proposed measures to abolish the controversial fund.

The taxpayer petition filed by a certain Rolly Mijares sought SC action against House Bill Nos. 4738 and 4690 calling for the abolition of JDF.

In its unanimous ruling, the SC invoked the fiscal independence of the judiciary. It was the first time the high court collegially addressed the issue.

“The entire budget for the judiciary, however, does not only come from the national government. The Constitution grants fiscal autonomy to the judiciary to maintain its independence. Courts therefore must also be accountable with its own budget,” the SC stressed.

The high tribunal also argued that “courts are not constitutionally built to do political lobbying (nor) trained to produce a political statement or a media release.”

It maintained that the JDF, which is used to augment the expenses of the judiciary, is regularly accounted for on a quarterly basis and that the financial reports are readily available in the Supreme Court’s website.

It even lamented that the JDF is “still not enough to meet the expenses of the lower courts and guarantee credible compensation of its personnel.”

“The reality is that halls of justice exist because we rely on the generosity of local government units who provide additional subsidy to our judges. If not, the budget for the construction, repair and rehabilitation of halls of justice is with the Department of Justice,” the court added.

While it did not grant the relief sought by Mijares, the SC acknowledged the petitioner’s concern for the judiciary.

“It is often through the vigilance of private citizens that issues relating to the judiciary can be discussed in the political sphere. Unfortunately, the remedy he seeks cannot be granted by this Court,” the SC said.

The high tribunal also pointed out that the petitioner’s crusade is not a lost cause.

“Considering what he seeks to be struck down is a proposed bill, it would be better for him to air his concerns by lobbying in Congress,” the SC said.

“There, he may discover the representatives and senators who may have a similar enthusiastic response to truly making the needed investments in the Rule of Law,” it suggested.

Last year, administration allies in the House initiated an investigation into the JDF and filed bills seeking its abolition through amendments to Presidential Decree 1949 that created the discretionary fund.

The moves spearheaded by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas were perceived to be in retaliation for the SC’s landmark rulings voiding the Priority Development Assistance Fund of Congress and parts of the Disbursement Acceleration Program of the President.