SC invokes fiscal autonomy on properties bought by retired justices

Invoking its fiscal autonomy, the Supreme Court has insisted it has the sole authority to determine how retirement privileges and benefits can be availed of by its retired members.

 

In this regard, the high court - in a 13-page per curiam resolution - upheld the validity of an in-house computation made by the Property Division of the SC Office of Administrative Services (OAS) for the value that a retired chief justice and four retired associate justices should pay to acquire government properties they used during their terms.

 

The SC said the formula that the OAS used based on Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution No. 35 dated April 23, 1997 was "legal and valid."

 

“(T)he use of the formula provided in CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35 is a part of the Court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to determine the manner the granted retirement privileges and benefits can be availed of,” the high court said.

 

“Any kind of interference on how these retirement privileges and benefits are exercised and availed of violates the fiscal autonomy and independence of the Judiciary, but also encroaches upon the constitutional duty and privilege of the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court En Banc to manage the Judiciary’s own affairs," the court added.

 

The high court cited Section 501 of Title 7, Chapter 3 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, Volume 1, which gives to heads of government departments and offices the sole authority to divest and dispose of property and assets owned by the national government.

 

“This provision clearly recognizes that the Chief Justice, as the head of the Judiciary, possesses the full and sole authority and responsibility to divest and dispose of the properties and assets of the Judiciary; as Head of the Office, he determines the manner and the conditions of disposition, which in this case relate to a benefit,” the SC said.

 

"Whether exercised by the Chief Justice or by the Supreme Court en banc, the grant of such authority and discretion [is] unequivocal and leaves no room for interpretations and insertions,” the court said.

 

In June 2010, the Commission on Audit said there was an underpayment of P221,021.50 when five retired SC justices purchased from the court the personal items assigned to them before, including motor vehicles and a television set.

 

The COA report said the SC's OAS-Property Division made an "erroneous appraisal" of the purchased items. The COA said COA Memorandum No. 98-569-A dated August 5, 1998 should have been used in appraising the values of the items, instead of the CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35.

 

But in its ruling, the high court said that fiscal autonomy is one of the most important aspects of judicial independence.

 

“While, as a general proposition, the authority of legislatures to control the purse in the first instance is unquestioned, any form of interference by the Legislative or the Executive on the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy amounts to an improper check on a co-equal branch of government,” the high court said.

 

“If the judicial branch is to perform its primary function of adjudication, it must be able to command adequate resources for that purpose," it added.

 

The SC said it has been a "long standing tradition... that even the COA has previously recognized" that the sale to retired justices of specifically designated properties that they used during their incumbency was both a "privilege and a benefit... to reward long and faithful [public] service." — RSJ, GMA News