House seeks abolition of SC ‘pork barrel’

(Updated 2:53 p.m.) Following controversies on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), lawmakers are mulling the repeal of the law that created the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) — described by some as the judiciary's "pork barrel."

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas on Monday filed House Bill 4738 repealing Presidential Decree 1949, which established the JDF.

In its place, a Judiciary Support Fund (JSF) will be created to help improve the technical capabilities of the judicial branch, upgrade the existing facilities and increase the benefits of judiciary personnel.

The JSF shall be deposited with the National Treasury as Special account in the General Fund. It will only be released to the Supreme Court after the judiciary has submitted an itemized list of what will be funded by the budget.

In a press conference Tuesday, Tupas said 29-year-old JDF should be repealed because the system lacks transparency and accountability. He said the Supreme Court’s use of the JDF is so shrouded in secrecy that the Commission on Audit (COA) was only able to give a general audit report on the fund to the House.

Discretionary fund
 
Tupas noted that just like DAP and PDAF, the JDF is considered a discretionary fund since it is administered by the Chief Justice.
 
PD 1949 states that the exclusive power and duty to approve and authorize disbursements and expenditures of the JDF is vested in the chief magistrate of the high court.
 
“In line with the Supreme Court decision on discretionary funds—that some of them are unconstitutional—we also have to look at the judiciary development fund,” Tupas said.
 
But the chairman of the House justice committee said Congress has been having difficulty scrutinizing the JDF since COA has only been able to conduct a general audit of the funds.
 
“We’re improving the law (PD 1949) with this bill,” Tupas said.
 
Under HB 4738, the COA is mandated to conduct a quarterly audit of the JSF. The audit report on the fund will be submitted to the Chief Justice, COA Chairperson and to the two chambers of Congress.
 
SC spokesperson Theodore Te has maintained that the Supreme Court has been open about its use of the JDF and the Special Allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ) since 2012.
 
He said quarterly reports on these two types of judiciary funds have always been made "accessible" to the public through the SC website. Te added that the Court regularly submits all reports pertaining to the use of judicial funds to the COA and the Department of Budget and Management.
 
Coincidence
 
Tupas said it was only a coincidence that he filed the bill on the same day President Benigno Aquino III gave a speech criticizing the Supreme Court for its adverse ruling on DAP.

The Supreme Court has earlier ruled that parts of the executive branch's DAP and the legislative branch's PDAF as unconstitutional. 
 
“I filed this because it was only finished yesterday. I have [been] consulting with the secretariat of the committees on justice and appropriations [regarding the bill] for a couple of weeks,” Tupas said.
 
He added that he has consulted with certain members of the Supreme Court—including Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno—about the bill but he said he is not at a liberty to discuss their opinion.

Tupas said the filing of HB 4738 was not the legislative branch’s way of sending a message to the SC to reconsider its ruling on DAP.
 
“I just want to assure iyong public na hindi naman ganoon ang nangyayari. This is a system at work. There are constitutional processes at work. The system of checks and balances [is at work],” he said.

In his televised speech Monday night, Aquino told members of the Supreme Court that he did not want to arrive at a point where the legislative branch will have to step in to intervene because the judiciary and executive branches have clashed.
 
Fringe benefits
 
Tupas maintained his bill does not violate the judiciary branch’s fiscal autonomy because the JSF is a special fund that seeks to provide additional financial support for employees of the judiciary.
 
“Fiscal autonomy merely states that once Congress approves the Supreme Court’s budget, it will be regularly released to the Court. But the JSF is a special account for fringe benefits, so it should be subject to rules and audit,” he said.
 
The lawmaker noted that the current JDF is a misnomer since it only benefits judiciary personnel.
 
“JDF is not for development because it goes to the grocery, gasoline allowance of employees in the judiciary… Properly it should be called a support fund,” Tupas said.
 
Under HB 4738, 70 percent of the JSF will be used for payment of allowances of the members and personnel of the Judiciary, while 15 percent shall be allocated for the acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment and facilities. The remaining 15 percent shall be allotted for the repair and maintenance of the Hall of Justice buildings.

The JSF shall be derived from the increase in legal fees; docket fees on estafa cases; incomes from sales of reports of decisions o the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan, books, periodicals, pamphlets or the like; fees collected from bar candidates or participants of seminars/workshops offered by the court; fees now authorized to be paid or collected by sheriffs such as sheriff’s commissions; interests on deposits of its incomes, and confiscated cash bonds satisfaction of judgments against bonds and proceeds from the public sale of confiscated property bonds in both civil and criminal cases.
 
A similar bill (HB 4690) was filed on July 7 by House Justice committee Vice Chairman and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas. —KBK, GMA News