High SC fees are antipoor
The report that the House of Representatives committee on justice, chaired by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, is contemplating not only to review or repeal Presidential Decree No. 1949 (a Marcos decree creating the Judiciary Development Fund or JDF) but also to take a second look at the power of the Supreme Court to impose docket and filing fees at exorbitant rates is welcome news.
For a very long time now, litigants have been subjected to this blatant tyranny and oppression just so enough money could be raised to augment the salaries of magistrates. The litigants are already the aggrieved parties, yet they are the ones paying staggering amounts just to seek judicial redress of their grievances.
The Supreme Court has, through the years, been increasing such fees without regard whatsoever to the capacity of litigants to pay. To many who can barely make both ends meet, it may seem cheaper to just buy a gun to settle a score once and for all—and with extreme prejudice! For in reality, “justice” has virtually become the monopoly of persons with very deep pockets.
The 1987 Constitution plainly says: No person shall be denied access to the courts by reason of poverty. The Supreme Court can give it all kinds of spin, and its interpretation may be “final,” but how far can it keep trying the people’s patience? If its continued disregard of that mandate is not a continuous “culpable violation” of the Constitution, then what is?
It is really ludicrous that in defending the JDF, the Supreme Court is quick to bring out the Constitution as its strongest weapon, invoking the judiciary’s independence. But when it comes to fattening the bank accounts of its members to the prejudice of poor litigants, it throws the Constitution out the window!
—JANNO MONTECRISTO,
