Fiscal autonomy will only allow profligate spending

“House to open probe of judiciary funds” was front-page news in the April 20 Inquirer issue. It referred to the renewed initiative of Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. to hold a public debate on the proposed abolition of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), which was shelved a year ago. Recent reports of scandals in the judiciary about “TROs for sale” prompted them to dust off the house bill meant to clean up that mess in light of the lackadaisical attitude the Supreme Court has so far shown in dealing with corruption in its ranks.

Public perception is widespread: Our justice system is “rotten to the core”! Apart from unabated corruption, public disgust also revolves around “decades-long” delays in the dispensation of justice. It is no longer uncommon for the original parties to a case to die of old age and be “substituted” by their legal heirs as the court tussle drags on for what seems like eternity (e.g., father and son are already shooting each other due to a family feud involving unparalleled greed that the court seems too helpless to resolve with dispatch [“Romero father vs son in fight for P3-B port,” Business, 4/20/15]! Chances are, after eventually putting each other out of their misery, their respective heirs will continue shooting, and the court will still be “hearing” the case.)!

When litigants are forced to pay obscenely exorbitant filing fees in seeking judicial redress of their grievances, the least they expect is some sort of “express lane” whereby the usual time it takes for cases to be resolved will be cut in half. But that turns out to be just wistful thinking. True that a trial may be speeded up in the lower courts, but given the facility with which cases are appealed to the higher courts where they hibernate, the litigants or their heirs are well-advised to acquire the “unli” patience of Job.

The JDF law allows the Supreme Court to increase judicial fees supposedly to raise funds for the judiciary’s reforms geared toward the speedier administration of justice. It is also the source of funds to augment the salaries and perks of magistrates, supposedly as an incentive to perform better. Alas, all good intents have amounted to naught. Instead, reports are rife that much of those funds have been frittered away on further “beautifying” the already luxurious offices of Court of Appeals and Supreme Court justices in Manila and their family cottages (American-style log cabins) in Baguio City!

Lower court personnel have been denouncing such profligacy in the face of their mendicancy—perpetually begging for funds to improve courtrooms around the country that look like bodegas for rotting NFA rice hoards! The JDF law should be amended to raise money only for the improvement of trial courtrooms, explicitly prohibiting the Supreme Court from diverting any part of it to other use. “Fiscal autonomy” is one argument na sobrang gasgas na, and has only served as a smokescreen to obfuscate any issue.

—ROGELIO S. CANDELARIO, [email protected]