| |
In a speech delivered by Justice Ruben T. Reyes during the 36th National Management Congress on
1. It must be acknowledged that when it comes to developing and managing the economy, the state should regularly steer clear of private citizens and their business initiatives. As initially espoused, it is not the government’s business to intervene in business. Thomas Jefferson expressed this in the extreme when he said that the best government is that which governs the least. On the other hand, the classical economist Adam Smith posits that government has no role in an economy, except to protect private property. The basic idea was that less government interference in private economic decisions such as pricing, production, consumption, and distribution of goods and services makes for a better, or more efficient, economy.
2. But unabated economic liberalism, while ushering in development, had led to certain evils and abuses that the legislative department began noticing and correcting: long hours of work, low wages, untrammelled price increases, lack of social safety nets, unregulated sales of stocks, monopolies and other problems besetting developing capitalist economies. Thus, began the age of economic regulation and intervention by the State. One prime example of economic regulation is the Sherman Act, an anti-trust law passed by the US Congress.
3. The task of regulating the economy falls upon Congress since it is empowered to exercise the police power of the state through legislation. The implementation, on the other hand, is for the account of the Executive department. Actual regulation of various facets of our economy is realized through the President and subordinate departments, agencies and local government units. If we consider this, it seems that, at first glance, the judiciary lacks a particular role in any area of the economy.
4. The judiciary does not have the vast powers granted to the other two branches of government. It does not have control over the other governmental units, it cannot make laws. Neither can it control appropriations in the national budget to suit its own needs. But to the judiciary is granted the power of judicial review. By this power, the courts are authorized to review the acts and decisions of the executive and legislative departments, and overturn them should they be found unconstitutional or with badges of grave discretionary abuse. Empowered as such, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature. Such is the crucial tool wielded by the judicary to achieve check and balances in our system.
5. The limitation of judicial review insofar as economic matters are concerned is best expressed in the constitutional challenges mounted against the laws imposing the value added tax. In all three VAT cases, the laws were upheld for failure to show grave discretionary abuse on the part of Congress or constitutional infirmities in any of their provisions. As we can see from the Oil Deregulation and VAT Cases, courts are not active policy makers. When it comes to economic matters, we leave those to the other branches of government. How, then, can the judiciary possibly contribute to economic development, at the grassroots level, when, traditionally, all it does is to review the acts of coordinate departments?
6. The answer lies in the strengthening of democracy through an effective and competent judiciary. Experts agree that the judiciary is a vital factor in the rule of law and in economic development. “Business firms and investors are more likely to invest, or increase their investment, in those countries where they can have some confidence in the court system and the ability of judges to enforce contracts and protect property rights.”
7. To help achieve our goal of economic development, therefore, we need a strong judiciary, not a weak one. But the pursuit of this vision is in danger of being sidelined. This year, the judiciary again received a pathetic insufficient budget – less than 1% of the entire national budget. Is this fair? Is this proportionate to the role the people expect us to perform for our economic progress? It needs no unusual stretch of imagination to realize that this meager budget impairs overall judicial independence as envisioned in our Constitution. We find this continuing poor provisions for the Judiciary distressing. While this may not cause alarm, the measly budget should concern everyone as it will consequently affect the administration of justice.
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.