EDITORIAL - Judges and allowances

Everybody needs money. Even judges. When three judges in Cebu waived their allowances from the Capitol, it was a personal decision that should be respected. But should they be praised? We do not think so, as a matter of context and fairness.

To praise the decision is to suggest that they have given up something bordering on the sinister in the Capitol allowances. Conversely, it is to impute something unsavory in the other judges who decided to continue receiving such allowances.

The Capitol allowances are given with a noble intent to help. They are no different from similar allowances given by other local governments which, in recognition of their legitimacy, even the Supreme Court, to which all judges bow, has not chosen to ban.

Not all money is evil. Salaries, for instance, are legitimate compensation given in exchange for the performance of legitimate tasks. Allowances, close cousins of salaries, hew closely to the same definition, but are given mostly as a form of augmentation assistance.

If there is nothing wrong in receiving either salaries or allowances, why then should it become suddenly praiseworthy for anyone to reject something that is perfectly all right to receive to begin with?

If the money rejected had been a bribe, then by all means the three judges, or anybody else for that matter, should be praised to high heavens. Money earned illegitimately may buy a lot of things, but will not serve the purpose for which the ability to afford is a blessing.

Again, we respect the decision of the three judges. If they felt uncomfortable getting allowances from the Capitol, then they were perfectly well within their rights to waive them. What this country needs is a judiciary whose conscience is not burdened by anything.

Unfortunately, some contexts, especially the wrong ones, can prove to be very damaging. More so when played out in a media whose drive for commercial success is pursued at the expense of proper perspective.

And that is why we now have a situation where, rightly or wrongly, those many other judges whose decision to continue receiving allowances is legally and ethically unassailable have become unfairly and needlessly suspect in the public’s eyes.