A power that needs restraining

The government isn't all that cash-strapped in development funds. Apart from revenues, there are foreign donors who continue to provide badly needed funding for development projects. For many years now, however, the country's availment rate for official development assistance has been so disappointing some foreign donors have suspended the release of funding or the approval of additional aid.

Bureaucratic red tape and slow project implementation are not the only problems here. The judiciary can also be a hindrance to development. Finance Secretary Jose Pardo said temporary restraining orders or TROs issued indiscriminately by the courts have delayed or irreparably damaged a number of major development projects. This year the government is implementing 176 projects financed with official development assistance. The ODA-funded projects cost a total of $11.439 billion, with the Japan Bank for International Cooperation financing a majority of the projects. The rest are funded by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and other agencies. As of the end of March, Pardo said, the country's ODA availment rate was only 59.8 percent, a slight drop from the 60.4 percent in the same period last year.

ODA-funded projects are not the only victims of the indiscriminate issuance of TROs. Even private business deals have been derailed by TROs, some of them issued by no less than the Supreme Court. TROs have become a source of corruption in the judiciary. Most damaging are the TROs that are anything but temporary, some of them remaining in place for months or even a year. This problem was among the issues raised by those clamoring for constitutional amendments to limit the powers of the judiciary.

There's no need for Charter change to curb the indiscriminate issuance of TROs. The government is currently pushing for legislation that will address this problem insofar as ODA-funded projects are concerned. Congress, however, can go a step further, by limiting the judiciary's power to issue TROs on many other matters. TROs do serve a purpose, and the judiciary can't lose its power to issue these restraining orders. But this power can be limited, to minimize abuse and reduce opportunities for graft.