YEARENDER: SC weighs people’s clamor, enforces power to review congressional actions
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and other magistrates listen to arguments on the constitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund and all previous forms of pork barrel last October. EDD GUMBAN
MANILA, Philippines - The year 2013 saw the Supreme Court (SC) imposing its power of review over actions of Congress through rulings generally reflective of the people’s clamor.
In a landmark decision last Nov. 19, the magistrates led by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno voted unanimously to declare unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and all previous forms of pork barrel, including the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF).
The high tribunal, which had just recovered from the impeachment of former chief justice Renato Corona in 2012, also abolished the long-standing practice of congressional insertions in the national budget.
It declared illegal the practice in the pork barrel system that allowed lawmakers “to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and/or fund realignment unrelated to the power of congressional oversight.”
Speaking through Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, the high tribunal held that the pork barrel system violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers of the executive and legislative branches as it “allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of budget executions.”
Pork barrel became controversial after it was learned that billions of PDAF were pocketed allegedly by several senators in cahoots with fake non-government organizations linked to Janet Lim-Napoles, the controversial businesswoman dubbed as “pork scam queen.
”Because of the controversy, the SC also directed prosecutorial agencies like the Department of Justice and Office of the Ombudsman to “investigate and prosecute all government officials and/or private individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful disbursement of all funds under the pork barrel system.”
Apart from pork barrel funds, the high tribunal also declared unconstitutional in the same ruling section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 910 allowing the President to use the Malampaya Fund in projects not related to energy.
Established in 1976, the Malampaya Fund is generated from royalties from oil and gas finds in the country only for the financing of “energy resource development and exploitation programs and projects of the government.”
But portions of this fund were allegedly used for ghost projects.
SC vs HRET
Another case where the SC demonstrated its power of review over Congress was the disqualification case of Regina Ongsiako-Reyes as representative of Marinduque in the May 2013 elections.
This case saw the high court in a tug-of-war with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) on jurisdiction over an electoral issue.
Voting 7-4 in June, the SC upheld the disqualification of Reyes in the poll by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) due to her failure to renounce her American citizenship as required of candidates with dual citizenships. The ruling became final last Dec. 3.
It held that Reyes failed to present any legal and factual basis to support her argument that while she got her US citizenship after marrying an American citizen, she has not yet undergone naturalization.
The ruling effectively made the rival of Reyes, former Rep. Lord Allan Velasco – who happens to be a son of one of the SC magistrates, Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. – the duly elected representative of the district.
In the SC decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Perez, the high court held that the HRET cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case since Reyes is not a valid member of the House as she was not able to take her oath of office before an open session as required by the rules and validly assume her post.
The House, however, invoked its exclusive jurisdiction of HRET on poll cases involving its members, insisting that Reyes – a member of the ruling Liberal Party – should remain in her post pending resolution of the case before the tribunal. Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali filed a resolution to support the jurisdiction of the HRET over the case of Reyes. He has reportedly already gathered over 160signatures from fellow congressmen.
A member of the high court told The STAR that such move from the House might result in a constitutional crisis – with Congress not honoring a ruling of the SC and the latter‘s power of judicial review.
In another landmark election-related ruling last April, the high court shook the party-list system and revised criteria for participating groups a month before the May 13 mid-term elections.
It struck down the previous practice of limiting the party-list elections exclusively to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, allowing several party-list groups earlier disqualified by the Comelec to participate in the polls.
In the new six-point parameters, the SC removed the previous requirement of the Comelec for groups joining the party-list election to belong to a marginalized or underrepresented sector, which was based on the SC’s ruling in the Ang Bagong Bayani case in June 2001.
The SC held that the party-list system should not be exclusive to sectoral groups and must be opened to regional parties and groups and even national political organizations that do not represent marginalized sectors enumerated in the law.
In the new ruling that set aside standards laid down in the Ang Bagong Bayani case, the SC also allowed political parties to participate in the party-list elections “provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidate in legislative district elections.”
Lawmakers vs Justices
With many of their decisions unfavorable to lawmakers, justices have exposed themselves to possible retaliation from some members of the legislature.
Rep. Umali went as far as pushing for impeachment of the magistrates for supposed “judicial despotism” and “for undermining the Constitution and disrespecting Congress as a coequal branch of government” in the two cases.
But such move did not prosper after House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. himself declared that collegial decisions of the high court cannot be used as basis for impeachment.
With impeachment ruled out, congressmen then moved to scrutinize judicial funds, including the Judiciary Development Fund which some of them tagged as the “pork barrel of the high court.”
House justice committee chair and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. will spearhead the probe.
But the SC stressed that the JDF cannot be likened to the pork barrel of Congress.
In a statement released recently by the office of Chief Justice Sereno, the SC explained that JDF was intended “for the benefit of the members and personnel of the judiciary to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and required by the impartial administration of justice.”
The SC also said JDF is not discretionary as the law requires that 80 percent of the fund “shall be used for cost of living allowances” while not more than 20 percent “shall be used for office equipment and facilities of the courts.” Read more on Philstar
