Palace, allies firm up JDF scrutiny bid

Source: The Daily Tribune Tribune 

BARZAGA SAYS IMPEACH BID VS JUSTICES ‘POSSIBLE’

Both President Aquino’s House allies and the Palace confirmed yesterday legislative efforts to inquire into the use of the controversial Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance of the Judiciary (SAJ) which is believed part of a broader campaign to pressure the Supreme Court (SC) into submitting to Aquino’s wish to retain the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the constitutionality of which is under SC deliberation.

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr., an administration ally, said the Legislative is just doing the Judiciary a favor by proving to the public that no one is above the law.

“The Supreme Court cannot evade the issue by invoking fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy must be subservient to fiscal accountability and responsibility,” he stressed.
Barzaga admitted that the House investigation could lead to the filing of impeachment complaints against justices.

Press Secretary Herminio Coloma justified the probe and said the Palace would support it.
Coloma said legislators have the power to conduct an investigation on the JDF based on the provisions of the approved national budget which included allocations to the Supreme Court and the judiciary.

“It has been stated in the provisions of the approved General Appropriations Act including the so-called oversight process about the off-budget funds such as the JDF,” Coloma said.

“That is what the law says, so we will follow,” Coloma said.

Barzaga added the inquiry into the judiciary funds is in line with the High Court’s call for transparency and accountability in government spending which the Tribunal underscored in its recent decision declaring the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or “pork barrel” unconstitutional.

“Actually this is not a ‘resbak’ (revenge). As a matter of fact, we are doing the Supreme Court a favor since in its ruling on the PDAF that it wanted possible sources of corruption in the budget to be removed,” he said on radio.

The JDF is also a lump sum fund of the judiciary like the PDAF for legislators which the SC declared illegal amid protests against its alleged misuse by lawmakers linked to businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles in the controversial P10-billion pork barrel scam case.
In the same way that lawmakers accepted the High Court’s decision, Barzaga said the magistrates have no reason to be onion-skinned.

“We adhere to the SC as the final arbiter of all conflicts but it should also show in the spirit of transparency and accountability, that it can reveal to the nation particularly to employees of the tribunal how the JDF is spent,” he added.

Barzaga, a representative from Dasmarinas City and member of the House committee on justice, was one of the public prosecutors in the impeachment trial of then SC Chief Justice Renato Corona who was convicted and removed from office last year by the Senate acting as an Impeachment Court.

“We know the SC decision on PDAF, in spite of the fact that it hurts most of our constituents, we gladly accepted the decision, we did not protest, we accepted it. In the same vein, if we conduct an investigation pursuant to our constitutional duty as provided for under the Constitution, I think the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution, must also respect our mandate in making legislation,” Barzaga said.

The veteran lawyer and accountant said the public is not convinced with the claim of transparency in the use of the JDF, especially since he has personally sifted through the details that the Court provided on its website.

Barzaga said the SC must make public the specific amount of Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) taken from the JDF to clerks, interpreters, clerk of courts, sheriffs, judges and justices.
“Well of course, it could be an impeachable offense, most especially if there would be evidence showing graft,” he said of possible impeachment cases filed against unnamed SC Justices.
In 2003, an impeachment complaint was filed against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide who has been accused of misusing the JDF for the renovation of the SC’s vacation cottages in Baguio City.

The JDF was created Under PD 1949 issued by President Marcos on July 18,1984.
The fund shall come from the docket and other legal fees paid by party litigants.
Under the decree, at least 80 percent of the funds shall be given to employees of the Judiciary by way of COLA and not more than 20 percent of the JDF shall be used for office equipment and other facilities.

Barzaga noted that as of December 31 last year, the balance of 20 percent of the JDF, which under the decree shall be used for office equipment and other facilities, was pegged at P1,190,328,840.84 (P1.1 billion) and P1,775,597,431.11 (P1.7 billion) as of June 30, 2013.
While these balances are accumulated collections over the years, the lawmaker said the SC has not spent the money amid complaints from court employees that they lack computers, stationaries, and other office needs.

For the year 2012, the total collections of the SC from the cases brought before it was P32,241,383.21 (P32.2 million).

However, Barzaga said the SC spent P65,674,014.79 for the COLA of the employees and justices of the SC and P108, 787,980.47 for office equipments and other facilities of the SC or a total expenditure of P172, 482, 595.25.

The expenditure, he noted, is much above the SC collection of P32.2 million.

“Dapat naman siguro sabihin ng Korte Suprema magkano ba ang COLA ng ordinary employee ng Judiciary based on their salary grade. Baka ang lumabas nito, katulad tayo ng ng government corporations natin na ang mga direktor at high-ranking officials ay masyadong malaki ang tinanggap na COLA,” he said.

“Ang nakakapagtaka nga rito, bakit P32 million lamang ang collection ng Supreme Court pero ang ginastos nila ay P172 million? And of course ang P172 million ay hindi sa kanilang collection lahat at kinuha nila sa collections from other courts and the bulk ng collections ay those coming from the lower courts,” Barzaga added.

The congressman also asked the Judiciary to explain how the Court of Appeals’ disbursements reached P42 million when its collections is just P5 million.

“Iyung P42 million hindi nila ini-specify, iyun ang nakakapagtaka. Sa Supreme Court, iyung 80 percent specified nila ‘yung COLA na 20 percent, ini-specify nila, but for the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals at lower courts hindi ini-specify ng Supreme Court kung ano ang kanilang gastos,” he said.

Barzaga said Congress’ investigation may lead to amendments to PD 1499.

“Hindi naman puwedeng sabihin ng Korte Suprema na itong batas na applicable sa kanila would be permanent and Congress could no longer touch this law or decree, under these circumstances, may karapatan talaga kami,” he said.

Barzaga said the Commission on Audit (CoA), which is mandated to scrutinize the use of the JDF under PD 1499, should also reveal its findings.

“We want to also find our ano ba ng resulta ng CoA audit, sinabi ba sa CoA audit kung magkano ang tinatangap ng bawat ordinary clerk ng judiciary, kung magkano ang Cost of Living Allowance ng ating court interpreter, ng ating mga sheriff, including ating judges and justices of CA and SC at iba pa,” he said.

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, who heads the Justice Committee, earlier disclosed that some members of his panel have been egging him to investigate the use of the JDF to restore “balance” among the three co-equal branches of government.

On July 18, 1984, then President Ferdinand Marcos, in the exercise of his legislative power, had issued Presidential Decree No. 1949, that paved way for the JDF to exist in the yearly budget.
“The independence of the Judiciary must be maintained by the State,” the law said.

In its whereas clauses, it said ” the economic conditions of the members and personnel of the Judiciary must be periodically reviewed and upgraded in order to preserve and enhance the independence of the Judiciary at all times and safeguard the integrity of its members”.

Marcos, who topped the 1939 bar examination, also penned that,”the Judiciary, in the discharge of its functions and duties, can generate its own funds and resources to help augment its budgetary requirements and ensure the uplift of its members and personnel”.
Last August, Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda denied that Malacañang was launching an attempt to control the JDF.

“We’re not trying to assert control. This is all under the control of the Supreme Court. This is pursuant to fiscal autonomy,” Lacierda said.

Lacierda also denied Malacanang’s alleged requirement for the Supreme Court to submit a quarterly report to Aquino on the status and use of the JDF and other funds. Lacierda then cited that the requirements were not imposed by Malacanang but of the Marcos’ PD 1949.

“This is not a new provision that just came out of nowhere. This is a word-for-word adoption of PD no. 1949… enacted during the time of Mr. Marcos,” Lacierda said.

The law provided that, “at least 80 percent of the fund shall be used for cost of living allowances and not more than 20 percent of the said fund shall be used for office equipment and facilities of the courts located wherever the legal fees are collected.”

It also stated that “the Commission on Audit through the auditor of the Supreme Court or his duly authorized representative shall quarterly audit the receipts, revenues, uses, disbursements, and expenditures of the fund.”

Lacierda said,”it has not been amended or repealed by Congress”. “This is a presidential decree (that) has a force and effect of law. During the time of Marcos, he also had the lawmaking powers, and so this particular PD can only be repealed by Congress—by an act of Congress,” Lacierda said.

Lacierda said that, “this is not something new. This provision is also found in the expenditure program fit for Fiscal Year 2014 or the budget proposal, the proposed budget,” Lacierda said.

By Gerry Baldo and Paul Atienza

http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/palace-allies-firm-up-jdf-scrutiny-bid