It is now the policy of the Supreme Court to impliedly encourage local government units to institutionalize the methodology and mechanism for the grant of additional allowances to local judges, citing the Local Government Code of 1991 as its legal basis, notwithstanding the negative comments of some sectors questioning the morality of such an arrangement because it tends to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The Court has to be pragmatic. The judiciary is not receiving enough money from the national budget. My recollection is that the annual funds for the judiciary is only about one percent (1%) of the national budget. Until such time that the Constitution is amended to give flesh to the constitutional doctrine of “judicial autonomy”, the Court has to swallow its pride and sense of nobility, and in dignified manner, “beg” from the local governments for the additional allowances of local judges.
A recent news item from the Philippine Supreme Court website (judiciary.gov.ph) reported that the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), and the Cebu City local government had signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) last March binding the city to contribute PhP1M for the establishment of the Local Government Unit-Judiciary Equalization Fund (LGU-JEF) (a beautiful euphemism)"to equalize the allocation or dispensation of allowances to judiciary members which local government units (LGUs) may allocate in their budgets".
The LGU-JEF will be "exclusively administered and managed by the High Court", which shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the orderly administration and management and equitable distribution of the LGU-JEF.
The Cebu City government has committed to contribute annually to the LGU-JEF to replenish the PhP1M.
The Cebu City government’s contribution is pursuant to Art. III, sec. 458 (1)(xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991 which allows the local government to, when its finances allow, “provide for additional allowances and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and other national government officials stationed in or assigned to the city.”
The grant of such allowances by LGUs to judges has been upheld by the Court in its decision in GR No. 125350, Dadole v. COA, December 3, 2002.
May I cite excerpts from the case of DADOLE, et al. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, GR 125350 EN BANC, December 3, 2002:
X x x.
On the other hand, the yearly appropriation ordinance providing for additional allowances to judges is allowed by Section 458, par. (a)(1)[xi], of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides that:
Sec. 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. – (a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city government, and in this connection, shall:
xxx xxx xxx
(xi) When the finances of the city government allow, provide for additional allowances and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and other national government officials stationed in or assigned to the city; (italics supplied)
X x x.
Clearly then, the President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a local government unit if he or she finds that the latter has acted contrary to law. This is the scope of the President’s supervisory powers over local government units. Hence, the President or any of his or her alter egos cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned local government unit acts within the parameters of the law and the Constitution. Any directive therefore by the President or any of his or her alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local affairs of a local government unit is a patent nullity because it violates the principle of local autonomy and separation of powers of the executive and legislative departments in governing municipal corporations.
X x x.
Setting a uniform amount for the grant of additional allowances is an inappropriate way of enforcing the criterion found in Section 458, par. (a)(1)(xi), of RA 7160. The DBM over-stepped its power of supervision over local government units by imposing a prohibition that did not correspond with the law it sought to implement. In other words, the prohibitory nature of the circular had no legal basis.
X x x.
Respondent COA failed to prove that Mandaue City used the IRA to spend for the additional allowances of the judges. There was no evidence submitted by COA showing the breakdown of the expenses of the city government and the funds used for said expenses. All the COA presented were the amounts expended, the locally generated revenues, the deficit, the surplus and the IRA received each year. Aside from these items, no data or figures were presented to show that Mandaue City deducted the subject allowances from the IRA. In other words, just because Mandaue City’s locally generated revenues were not enough to cover its expenditures, this did not mean that the additional allowances of petitioner judges were taken from the IRA and not from the city’s own revenues.
Moreover, the DBM neither conducted a formal review nor ordered a disapproval of Mandaue City’s appropriation ordinances, in accordance with the procedure outlined by Sections 326 and 327 of RA 7160 which provide that:
Section 326. Review of Appropriation Ordinances of Provinces, Highly Urbanized Cities, Independent Component Cities, and Municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area. The Department of Budget and Management shall review ordinances authorizing the annual or supplemental appropriations of provinces, highly-urbanized cities, independent component cities, and municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area in accordance with the immediately succeeding Section.
Section 327. Review of Appropriation Ordinances of Component Cities and Municipalities.- The sangguninang panlalawigan shall review the ordinance authorizing annual or supplemental appropriations of component cities and municipalities in the same manner and within the same period prescribed for the review of other ordinances.
If within ninety (90) days from receipt of copies of such ordinance, the sangguniang panlalawigan takes no action thereon, the same shall be deemed to have been reviewed in accordance with law and shall continue to be in full force and effect. (emphasis supplied)
Within 90 days from receipt of the copies of the appropriation ordinance, the DBM should have taken positive action. Otherwise, such ordinance was deemed to have been properly reviewed and deemed to have taken effect. Inasmuch as, in the instant case, the DBM did not follow the appropriate procedure for reviewing the subject ordinance of Mandaue City and allowed the 90-day period to lapse, it can no longer question the legality of the provisions in the said ordinance granting additional allowances to judges stationed in the said city.
X x x.