SC: JDF meant to ensure judicial independence

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) invoked judicial independence yesterday as it explained the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) amid moves by some lawmakers to have it scrutinized and, if necessary, make some magistrates accountable for its possible misuse.

In a statement released by the office of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the SC said the JDF is a “special purpose fund” set up in 1984 through Presidential Decree No. 1949.

It is meant “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 declared.

The SC said that unlike the pork barrel, the JDF is not discretionary. The law requires that 80 percent of the fund be used for cost of living allowances (COLA) of judiciary workers and 20 percent for the acquisition and maintenance of court office equipment and facilities.

“While the chief justice is given the power to administer and allocate the fund and shall have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve and authorize disbursement and expenditures of the fund, she is not given any discretion on how the funds will be used,” the SC statement read.

The SC also denied reports that the JDF amounts to some P5 billion.

It said 80 percent of the fund is released monthly to employees as COLA. The remaining 20 percent, on the other hand, has an accumulated balance of P1.435 billion as of Nov. 30, according to a report by the SC’s office of fiscal management and budget office.

Of this amount, P732.5 million has been earmarked for the construction of Court of Appeals buildings in Cebu and in Cagayan de Oro, and for consultancy services for the electrical system of the high court in Manila.

Another P620.7 million has been certified as available for various capital outlays of the court, including procurement of computer sets, and construction and repair of courthouses.

The SC said the 20-percent component of JDF amounting to P200 million yearly is “barely enough for the court to source its budget for renovations, repairs and construction of halls of justice and for the various equipment needed for court operations.”

The SC said it submitted a report on the uses and balances of the JDF to the House committee on appropriations and Senate finance committee during the budget deliberations last September.

“The JDF reports are also included in the annual report submitted by the Chief Justice in August 2013 to the Office of the President, the Senate president, and the speaker of the House of Representatives. The annual report is also posted in the judiciary’s website and is accessible to everyone,” it explained.

The high court also emphasized that since the last quarter of 2011, it has been submitting financial reports on the JDF to the Department of Budget and Management.

Iloilo City Rep. Niel Tupas, chairman of the House committee on justice, earlier announced plans to investigate possible misuse of the JDF, citing lawmakers’ so-called constitutional power over the purse.

The announcement came in the wake of the SC’s declaring the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional. Lawmakers said the SC decision was tantamount to judiciary’s encroachment on Congress’ power.

In its annual report released last August, the SC detailed how the P15.357-billion budget of the judiciary last year had been spent.

Total JDF collections from legal fees from August 2012 to July 2013 reached over P1 billion.

“Every single centavo in the judiciary is fully audited. We cannot escape COA (Commission on Audit) accounting,” Sereno said in a press conference last August.

COA review

A COA review of the JDF and the Special Allowances for Judges (SAJ) Fund is in fact in order, according to Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. of Dasmariñas City in Cavite.

He said he was making the appeal after revelations from some auditors that their audit of the two special funds was just “superficial.”

He said his proposed special audit should be similar to what the COA did with PDAF, which the SC has struck down as unconstitutional.

He suggested that the audit commission find out whether the SC is sticking to the 80-20 disbursement of the JDF.

– Edu Punay, Jess Diaz, Jose Rodel Clapano