C. Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy (See RA 12233)

C. Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy

1987 CONST., art. VIII, secs. 3 and 10

> SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During the continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Constitutional Safeguards to Secure Judicial Independence

Judiciary in General

• Creation and abolition of courts
• Congress’ power to create courts implies the power to abolish and even re-organize courts. But this power cannot be exercised in a manner that would undermine the security of tenure of the judiciary. If the abolition or re-organization is done in good faith and not for political or personal reasons, it is valid. (De La Llana v. Alba, G.R. No. L-57883, March 12 1982)
• Congress may enact laws prohibiting courts from issuing restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion. However, on issues involving questions of law, courts cannot be prohibited from exercising their power to restrain such acts. (Malaga v. Penachos, Jr., G.R. No. 86695, Sept. 3, 1992)
• Members of the judiciary enjoy security of tenure. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 2.)
• Members of the judiciary may not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 12.)
• The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) does not exercise quasi-judicial functions. When the Supreme Court, as the PET, resolves a presidential or vice-presidential election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power (Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618, Nov. 23, 2010).
• The salaries of Justices and judges shall be fixed by law and cannot be decreased during their continuance in office. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 10.)
• However, their salaries are properly subject to a general income tax law applicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of their salaries during their continuance in office. (Nitafan v. CIR, G.R. No. 78780, July 23, 1987). Owner check: The cited G.R. number appears to omit the “L-” prefix; verify against Nitafan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-78780, July 23, 1987.
• The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from undue influence or interference. (In re Letter of UP Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4- C, March 8, 2011)
• The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. (PHIL. CONST., art. VIII, § 3.)
• The grant of fiscal autonomy to the Judiciary is more extensive than the mere automatic and regular release of its approved annual appropriations. Real fiscal autonomy covers the grant to the Judiciary of the authority to use and dispose of its funds and properties at will, free from any outside control or interference. (Re: COA Opinion on Computation of Appraised Value of Properties Purchased by SC Justices, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012)
• Fiscal autonomy contemplates a guarantee on full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that the Judiciary’s needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions. (Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992)
• Legal fees constitute not only a vital source of the Court’s financial resources but also comprise an essential element of the Court’s fiscal independence. Any exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by Congress to GOCCs and LGUs will necessarily reduce the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). Such situation is constitutionally infirm for it impairs the Court’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy, which recognizes the power and authority of the Court to levy, assess and collect fees including legal fees. (Re: In the Matter of Clarification Of Exemption from Payment of All Court and Sheriff's Fees of Cooperatives, A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, March 13, 2012)

Concepts

The 2 distinct concepts of judicial independence are:

• Decisional independence - refers to a judge’s ability to render decisions solely based on facts and applicable law, free from political or popular influence
• Institutional independence - refers to the collective independence of the judiciary or freedom from outside control, e.g., fiscal autonomy

Safeguards of Judicial Independence