En Banc, UDK-15143, January 21, 2015
IN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY MOVEMENT VS. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY.
"x x x.
The judiciary is the weakest branch of government. It is true that courts have power to declare what law is given a set of facts, but it does not have an army to enforce its writs. Courts do not have the power of the purse. "Except for a constitutional provision that requires that the budget of the judiciary should not go below the appropriation for the previous year, it is beholden to the Congress depending on how low the budget is."49
Despite being the third co-equal branch of the government, the judiciary enjoys less than 1%50 of the total budget for the national government. Specifically, it was a mere 0.82% in 2014,51 0.85% in 2013,52 0.83% in 2012,53 and 0.83% in 2011.54
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses or MOOE "pays for sundry matters such as utility payments, paper, gasoline and others."55 The MOOE granted to the lower courts in 2014 was P1,220,905,000.00.56 While this might seem like a large amount, the amount significantly dwindles when divided among all lower courts in the country. Per the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA), the approximate monthly MOOE for all courts are estimated as follows:
| Type of Court | Number of Courts57 | Estimated Monthly MOOE Per Court |
| Regional Trial Courts | 969 | |
| Metropolitan Trial Courts | 106 | |
| Municipal Trial Courts in Cities | 229 | |
| Municipal Circuit Trial Courts | 468 | |
| Municipal Trial Courts | 366 | |
| Shari’a District Courts | 5 | |
| Shari’a Circuit Courts | 51 |
These amounts were arrived at using the following computation:
Number of Courts Total Number of Courts | x | MOOE | / 12 |
Number of Courts | |||
In comparison, the 2014 MOOE allocation for the House of Representatives wasP3,386,439,000.0058 or about 282.2 million per month for the maintenance and operation of the House of Representatives compound in Batasan Hills. Even if this amount was divided equally among the 234 legislative districts, a representative’s office space would still have a monthly MOOE allocation of approximately P1.2 million, which is significantly higher than the average P46,000.00 allocated monthly to each trial court.
It was only in 2013 that the budget allocated to the judiciary included an item for the construction, rehabilitation, and repair of the halls of justice in the capital outlay. The amount allocated was P1 million.59
In 2014, there was no item for the construction, rehabilitation, and repair of the halls of justice.60 This allocation would have been used to help fund the repair of existing halls of justice and the construction of new halls of justice in the entire country, including those courts destroyed by Typhoon Yolanda and the 2013 earthquake.
The entire budget for the judiciary, however, does not only come from the national government. The Constitution grants fiscal autonomy to the judiciary to maintain its independence.61 In Bengzon v. Drilon:62
The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based.63
Courts, therefore, must also be accountable with their own budget. The Judiciary Development Fund, used to augment the expenses of the judiciary, is regularly accounted for by this court on a quarterly basis. The financial reports are readily available at the Supreme Court website.64 These funds, however, are still not enough to meet the expenses of lower courts and guarantee credible compensation for their personnel. The reality is that halls of justice exist because we rely on the generosity of local government units that provide additional subsidy to our judges.65 If not, the budget for the construction, repair, and rehabilitation of halls of justice is with the Department of Justice.66
As a result, our fiscal autonomy and judicial independence are often undermined
by low levels of budgetary outlay, the lack of provision for maintenance and operating expenses, and the reliance on local government units and the Department of Justice.
"Courts are not constitutionally built to do political lobbying. By constitutional design, it is a co-equal department to the Congress and the Executive. By temperament, our arguments are legal, not political. We are best when we lay down all our premises in the finding of facts, interpretation of the law and understanding of precedents. We are not trained .to produce a political statement or a media release."67
"Because of the nature of courts, that is - that it has to decide in favor of one party, we may not have a political base. Certainly, we should not even consider building a political base. All we have is an abiding faith that we should do what we could to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails. It seems that we have no champions when it comes to ensuring the material basis for fiscal autonomy or judicial independence."68
For this reason, we appreciate petitioner's concern for the judiciary. It is often only through the vigilance of private citizens that issues relating to the judiciary can be discussed in the political sphere. Unfortunately, the remedy he seeks cannot be granted by this court. But his crusade is not a lost cause. Considering that what he seeks to be struck down is a proposed bill, it would be better for him to air his concerns by lobbying in Congress. There, he may discover the representatives and senators who may have a similar enthusiastic response to truly making the needed investments in the Rule of Law.
x x x."
