|
THE
fiscal constraints being experienced by the judiciary is
hindering the better administration of justice in the
country, according to a report released by the Asian
Development Bank (ADB).
In the
technical assistance (TA) report, the ADB said this
situation, along with the lack or absence of efforts to
strengthen the judiciary, are the main reasons the
judiciary, particularly the lower courts, are still
prone to political influence.
“Although the Philippine Constitution recognizes that
the judiciary must have fiscal autonomy, in practice,
the judiciary’s budget and the cash releases were
subject to the same terms and conditions applied to
agencies without fiscal autonomy,” the report stated.
“Public support for the judiciary is imperative if the
latter is to maintain its role as an independent and
accountable, third branch of government.”
The ADB
said the fiscal constraints of the judiciary forced it
to negotiate budgetary items with the executive on a
transaction-by-transaction basis.
The
report noted that this absence of fiscal independence
has made lower courts vulnerable to political influence.
The ADB said many municipal courts are dependent on the
budget subsidies provided by many local government units
(LGUs).
Further,
the ADB said the lack of financial autonomy in the
judiciary has made incentives and institutional support
wanting among judges who could fill-in the vacant posts
in lower courts. The ADB said that as much as one-third
of the country’s lower courts were vacant.
The
report stated that Republic Act (RA) 9227, which was
passed in 2003, granted special allowances equivalent to
100 percent of the basic monthly salary for respective
salary grades of judges and justices over a period of
four years.
This,
the ADB said, was a clear indication from the executive
and legislative departments of their commitment to
improve the judicial system or maintain the competency
of judges and justices.
However,
the actual funds were not available.
“The
real problem in finding enough budget support for a
revised remuneration package for judges and justices is
that the government is hard- pressed to find the funds
for many things, including such a package,” the report
stated.
Meanwhile, the ADB said that these financial problems
are being aggravated by a lack of administrative
autonomy in the judicial system.
The
report stated that its lack of administrative autonomy
is seen in the process of evaluation and approval of
salary grades; changes in staffing patterns; and
creation, abolition, reclassification and upgrade of
positions, which were the same with the procedures
applied to executive agencies.
This,
the ADB said, has resulted in work-task duplication,
under-staffing, inappropriate skills mix and
inefficiencies.
“The
absence of institutionalized, systematic, performance
monitoring and evaluation of judges’ legal ability,
behavior, court-management skills, and impartiality
contributed to the erosion of public confidence in the
judicial system,” the ADB added.
To
improve the judicial system, the Supreme Court adopted
the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) in
November 2000 as a concrete step to establish a strong
foundation for the long-term development of the
judiciary.
The APJR
aimed to strengthen the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy and
independence from political interference and support the
delivery of fair and speedy justice, among other things.
The ADB
said while the APJR and the commitment of the Department
of Budget and Management to support the reforms were a
good indication of the commitment to improve the justice
system, support for the judiciary, in general, must
continue and be expanded.
The
report stressed that support must not only be extended
to courts located in the cities but in lower courts in
provinces and even law-enforcement agencies, which are
usually left out of the benefits of the reform process.
“It is
recommended that support be provided, not only to the
Philippine judiciary, but the justice sector as a whole,
including agencies involved in law enforcement and
prosecution. Other pillars of justice affect the
effectiveness and efficiency of the judiciary. Support
to implement and roll out the recommended reforms should
be considered and pursued,” the ADB concluded. |