Sad to say, but it seems the justices of the Supreme Court are not really above enriching themselves just like the public officials they have sent to jail for greed. Those officials got into trouble for not being content with their salaries. The justices, too, have exhibited the same avarice. Doesn’t “public service” involve some sacrifice anymore?
The justices have fixed salaries and allowances as members of the Supreme Court. When they perform duties as members of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) or the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), they receive millions of pesos more, over time, on top of their regular remunerations. And they receive much more when all of them sit as members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)!
Of course, this is all legal. Who can go against a ruling of their own making and for their own benefit? But is it moral? When the justices perform tasks outside the Supreme Court (i.e., as HRET, SET or PET members), they, in fact, go on a leave of absence, however briefly, from their basic, primary Supreme Court duties. Yet, no deductions are ever made from their pay despite the “no-work, no-pay” standard they apply to everyone else.
The excuse is, they are on “official business.” So, if that “official business” is actually paid for already because their salaries as Supreme Court members remain undiminished, why are they still being paid more for their time sitting as members of those tribunals? Isn’t that double or triple compensation?
—CARMELA N. NOBLEJAS, cnn_wuzzup@yahoo.com