YEARENDER: SC weighs people’s clamor, enforces power to review congressional actions

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 160 signatures 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.”

Ma’am Arlene

The SC also had to deal with another controversy in 2013 – the alleged influence peddling in courts by a certain “Ma’am Arlene.”

Talk about the woman dubbed as “Napoles of the judiciary“ who “fixes” cases in the trial courts and in the Court of Appeals for her rich clients made the rounds in the legal circle sometime in September before the hotly contested elections in the Philippine Judges Association (PJA).

Arlene allegedly hosted accommodations and provided expensive gifts to judges during their conventions.

The three judges who vied for the top post in the PJA have denied involvement in the controversy.

Still, the controversy was so alarming the high court had to create a panel to investigate the matter.

The committee chaired by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen vowed to complete their probe by April.

Lawyer Lorna Kapunan also claimed in a TV interview that she knew of a justice in the high court who allegedly accepts bribe in exchange for favorable decisions.

Kapunan had even alleged that a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals (CA) could be bought for as much as P5 million.

The high court had already asked the lawyer to clarify her reported accusations and report to the SC.

Chief Justice Sereno had earlier called on whistle-blowers in bribery and extortion in courts to come out in the open so that the SC would be able to take necessary actions.

Populist decisions

But despite the attacks on the judiciary, the past year saw the high court churning out many pro-people decisions.

A case in point was the recent temporary restraining order on the record-high power rate increase of Manila Electric Co. (Meralco).

The high court’s performance could best be gauged by its rising public approval.

In the last Social Weather Stations survey conducted from Sept. 20 to 23, the SC surpassed the public satisfaction ratings of both the Senate and the House.

The high court’s rating stayed “good,” up by four points to +41 (60 percent satisfied, 18 percent dissatisfied) from the +37 it recorded last June. Its satisfaction has remained “good“ since August last year.

The Senate’s satisfaction rating declined to “good” from “very good” with net satisfaction ratings dropping by 18 points to +36 (59 percent satisfied, 23 percent dissatisfied) from +54 in June 2013.

Public satisfaction with the House of Representatives also fell to moderate” from “good.” Net satisfaction was +27 (50 percent satisfied, 23 percent dissatisfied), down 10 points from the previous quarter’s +37.

For the executive department as a whole, net satisfaction hardly moved, staying as “moderate” at +27 (48 percent satisfied, 21 percent dissatisfied) from the previous quarter of +28. It has been moderated since September 2010, except in August 2012 when it was a “good” +33.

Sereno’s ratings also increased by four points to +17 (39 percent satisfied and 22 percent dissatisfied) from +13 in the previous quarter. Her latest rating is the highest since she was first surveyed in the last quarter of 2012 after her appointment as chief justice in August 2012.

More controversies ahead?

More challenges lie ahead for the SC, which is expected to apply more its power of review over the executive branch this time.

Justices are expected to rule this year on other controversial cases like the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), Cyber Crime Prevention Act and the highly debated Reproductive Health Law.

The high court heard last Nov. 19 oral arguments on petitions against DAP.  The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, will argue its case on Jan. 28.

The DAP became controversial after Sen. Jinggoy Estrada revealed that P50 million had been released through DAP as “incentives” to lawmakers who voted for the impeachment of Corona.

A source would explain that the SC can annul the decision handed down by the Senate impeachment court if bribery or corruption in the verdict is established or proven.

“My personal opinion is that the bribery or corruption may occur before the trial, during the trial, or even after a decision is handed down, if the offer of reward or incentive is aired before or during the trial,” the source added. 

Corona’s impeachment had led to transparency in the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of justices.