UNLESS the 1987 Philippine Constitution is amended, the pernicious effects of patronage politics will pose a continuing threat not only to the independence and integrity of the Judiciary, but also to the whole country.
No one can deny that the Judiciary is now exposed to a process of creeping politicization, where some errant officials of the Executive and Legislative branches, with self-serving political and economic interests, wanted to control the Supreme Court after it wrote finis to the pernicious pork-barrel practice.
This is so because politics, rather than economics, is the country’s major preoccupation, where elections are hotly contested by ballots, wallets and bullets to persuade voters.
It is alleged that even our laws encourage the commission of corruption, and the perpetuation of favoritism and patronage in politics.
For example, in Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code, a candidate for president is allowed to spend P10 for every voter. Based on 50 million registered voters, this is P500 million. If he or she is running under a political party, he or she is allowed to spend an additional P5 per voter, or P250 million more or a total of P750 million, for a position that has a maximum salary of only P3.4 million in six years.
This law—originally Batas Pambansa 881 and amended by Republic Acts 6636, 6646, 6734, 6766, 6679, 7166, 7941 and 8189, and the 1987 Constitution—is not only ridiculous, but also provides an opportunity to commit corruption, because the attendant ill of paying political debts and recovering personal expenses (plus interests) after the election is unavoidable.
Arguably, the evil effects of partisan politics flow over the mainstream of the Judiciary, and pollute its purity. For the courts ultimately resolve political contest; hence, some politicians employ fair and foul means to influence the appointment of judges and justices. Needless to say, they work only for the appointment of those with canine-like devotion to their vaulting ambitions.
Another, more pernicious problem is the country’s economic retrogression that works against the Judiciary, whose outrageous budget share is less than 1 percent of the national budget.
“This is a pittance that tragically translates into lack of decent halls of justice, poor court facilities, low salaries, etc.,” former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno said, adding that “the Judiciary is also bedeviled by vacant salas; worse, it finds difficulty to attract top-of-the-line lawyers; and, worst, it tempts some to entertain unholy acts.”
“An ignorant mind and a corrupt heart are not the vital organs of a good judge,” the former chief magistrate said.
For 2007 to 2009, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an audit on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the so-called Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP). The PDAF is for so-called soft projects, like education, health, livelihood, social services, financial assistance to address propoor programs, peace and order, culture and the arts; VILP is the “hard” portion, or public works. The VILP is why it’s more fun—rather, fund—in Congress.
Looking at the pork-barrel issue, the COA audit for 2007 to 2009 revealed that those who participated in the plunder involved three departments—the departments of Agriculture (DA), Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
According to my former colleague in the old Times-Mirror-Taliba publication and now fellow columnist Tony Lopez:
The “DA has become synonymous with hunger [4.9 million Filipino families, or 25 million Filipinos, had nothing to eat at one time in the last three months, according to the Social
Weather Stations].”
The “DPWH has become synonymous with highway robbery—the kind perpetrated by our senators and [House members]. And the social welfare of [the] DSWD could, as well, stand for the “private welfare” of our 70 elite political families.
“Aside from the three Cabinet departments, also involved in the massive looting of taxpayers’ money were four government corporations—Technology and Livelihood Resource Center, National Livelihood Development Corp., National Agribusiness Corp. and Zamboanga del Norte Agricultural College Rubber Estate Corp.
“Plus five provincial governments—Tarlac, Bataan, Nueva Ecija, Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental; and [seven] city governments—Mandaluyong City, Manila [including 12 barangays], Las Piñas, Tabaco, Iriga, Naga and Panabo.
“The COA audit for 2007 to 2009 validated P101 billion in [the] VILPs [infrastructure funds] released by the Department of Budget and Management nationwide, P12 billion in PDAF released to the DA, DPWH and DSWD; and P2.36 billion from [the] allocation for financial assistance to local government units and budgetary support to GOCCs [government-owned and -controlled corporations].”
What compounds the abovementioned problems is that some misguided
politicians continued to blame the justices for putting an end to the pork-barrel practice.
Puno’s reminder for misguided and angry politicians is quite instructive:
“An attack against justice anywhere is an attack against justice everywhere. In the world of justice, we are all brothers and we are our brothers’ keepers. Where the light of justice is yet to shine, let us help light it; where the light of justice is flickering, let us help it flare; where the light of justice is flaring, let us keep it flare eternally.”
He said that, in a participatory democracy, it is essential that citizens have faith in their public institutions.
“A Judiciary that is seen as fair and independent is a vital component in sustaining people’s trust and confidence in the Judiciary. It is through the Judiciary that people truly experience the working of a democracy and good governance,” he concluded.
E-mail: cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.