‘Judiciary benefited from realigned funds’

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court and the judiciary had been a recipient of hundreds of millions in fund realignments from Malacañang before the SC declared such appropriations unconstitutional two weeks ago.

In its ruling on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the high court prohibited “cross-border” fund realignments from the executive branch to the judiciary, Congress or independent constitutional commissions, and vice versa.

A three-page document obtained by The STAR from a source in the House of Representatives shows that there had been cross-border fund augmentations from the Palace to the judiciary and constitutional commissions since 1992 up to last year.

The latest such realignment to the judiciary was P10.133 million released on June 6, 2013 to the Court of Appeals for “additional funding requirements for traveling and other expenses.”

It is not clear if the money was sourced from DAP, which the Aquino administration implemented from 2011 to 2013.

In 2010, the appellate court received P35 million for its “zero backlog activities,” while P13.5 million was given to the Court of Tax Appeals for its “operational requirements.” The funds were released on Dec. 13.

That same year, also on Dec. 13, P50 million was released to the Commission on Appointments for “operating requirements.” The independent commission is the congressional body that screens Cabinet appointees.

In 2006, the Supreme Court received an additional P134.185 million from Malacañang, while the Court of Appeals was given P35 million.

That same year, P200 million was released to Congress on top of its appropriations.

The document does not describe what the fund realignments between 1992 and 2006 were for.

Some P1 million was added to the funds of the judiciary in 1999.

The judiciary, constitutional commissions, including the Office of the Ombudsman and Congress were collectively labeled as “Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group” or CFAG.

In 1992, P7.398 million was released to this group. The specific recipients and the amounts of realigned funds are not shown in the document.

Other fund realignments were P85 million to Congress and P3 million to the Ombudsman in 1996, and P435.250 million to Congress and P500 million to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in 2000.

In 2007, the Comelec received a total of P2.251 billion in additional funds for the conduct of the May congressional and local elections.

Five years later, in 2012, the poll body received an additional P4.143 billion for the conduct of the May 2013 combined congressional and local balloting.

In 2011, P143.7 million in fund augmentation was released to the Commission on Audit for its “infrastructure program and hiring of additional litigation experts,” while P45 million was given to the House of Representatives for “additional requirements for legislative activities and projects.”

Entries in the three-page document are based on fund release records of the Department of Budget and Management, where requests for additional funds from government agencies, including those grouped under CFAG, are forwarded.

Reached for comment, Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. said such augmentations are now prohibited under the SC ruling on DAP, since they are cross-border realignments.

Isabela Rep. Rodolfo Albano III, who has called for a detailed audit of the judiciary development fund, which he describes as SC’s pork barrel, said he could not understand why realigned funds received by the judiciary before “were deemed constitutional but are now suddenly unconstitutional.”

Noting that some justices were hinting that President Aquino and Budget Secretary Abad could be criminally liable for DAP, he asked, “Do these justices imply that they could be impeached for receiving cross-border funds?”

Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, one of the petitioners who questioned the DAP before the SC, said justices had every right to declare fund realignments as unconstitutional even if they were beneficiaries of such realignments.

“If one receives assistance from DAP or PDAF (congressional pork barrel), no one should begrudge him if he eventually realizes it was not right or legal and questions it,” he said.

‘Open books’

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga yesterday said members of the Supreme Court must also prove that they are beyond reproach by allowing the public scrutiny of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

Barzaga cited the concurring decision on the unconstitutionality of the DAP penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion who lamented a situation where the people would have no more trust in the executive and legislative branches of government.

“Considering that the Supreme Court is the prime mover in so far as transparency and accountability is concerned, then they must show to the public how they are spending their JDF,” the lawmaker told reporters.

While the SC has fiscal autonomy, “fiscal transparency is much more superior,” he said.

Barzaga put pressure on the SC, saying if it is not willing to open its books, there are remedies to compel the high tribunal, such as special audit by the Commission on Audit.

He said moves in the House to scrutinize the JDF were not aimed at hitting the judiciary but only an effort for transparency.