Senators on Thursday, Sept. 24, questioned the decision of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to cut pertinent items, such as the budget for the salaries of judges-at-large, in the proposed P43.54-billion budget of the judiciary for 2021.
This was after the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara, was told that the DBM did not include in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) for 2021, the salaries for the 50 judges-at-large, hazard pay for judges, and other items that were included by Congress in the 2020 national budget of the judiciary.
“All the congressional insertions made last year was removed this year including the hazard pay and this salaries for our judges-at-large,” Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez, told senators during a hybrid budget hearing.
“And there were a few more items that were added by Congress during your bicameral session (last year)—professional services, maintenance of buildings—tinanggal po lahat yun (all of these were moved) for 2021,” Midas added.
The issue was raised by the Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta after Senate minority leader Franklin Drilon inquired about the status of the implementation of the law which called for the appointments of judges-at-large to solve the uneven docket load of various second level courts all over the country.
Angara noted there was P126.47-million inserted by the Senate in 2020 budget of the SC for the hiring of judges-at-large and for other items. According to Midas, the said funds for the 50 slots of positions for judges-at-large were released in 2020, but none are included in their 2021 budget.
“That’s right your honor, tinanggal din (it was removed too),” Midas said.
To which Drilon said: “How does the DBM expect you to pay these judges that you appoint pursuant to the budget or the General Appropriations Act of 2020 when nothing is provided in 2021? Ano bay an?”
“Again, this is another instance of the lack of diligence in arriving at the budget of the Supreme Court,” Drilon pointed out.
“The number one instance is, that they cannot reduce the budget for the following year—that is unconstitutional. Number two, they allow the appropriation for the current year to hire judges, but once you hire judges, you have no more budget for them next year. Ganon bay un?” the minority leader further said.
Drilon said the DBM should move quickly to restore these missing items in the budget of the judiciary because that would be “violative of the Constitution.”
“I think we should make sure that, Mr. Chairman, our respectful submission is that these are not budget items that the judiciary should plea for because this is a matter of right. They are entitled to this,” Drilon stressed.
“Hindi naman tama iyan because that is part of the fiscal autonomy outline in our Constitution, that we would be violative of the Constitution,” he emphasized.