|
Saturday, October 02, 2004
IBP mulls suit v. DOJ over imposition of fee
By Benjamin B. Pulta
* SC meet over fee hike
LAWYERS in private practice plan to go to court over the recently-announced plan of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to impose fees for pleas and other legal actions filed before prosecutors.
This, as the Supreme Court (SC) committee for the revision of rules gave concerned parties 30 days to file their recommendations on the refinements over its own plan to increase legal fees for litigants.
Among those present in Friday morning's consultation at the SC were representatives from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the association of judges in the country, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and the association of clerks of court. Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno presided over the consultations.
"The IBP has not abandoned its suit," IBP's Board of Governors vice chairman Leonard de Vera said Friday commenting on the possible repercussions on the IBP's petition pending before the High Court, which questioned the Constitutionality of the law, which became a basis for the increase of court fees.
Among the matters taken up during the hearing was the reported non-issuance of receipts for small amounts received by lower court employees for rendering such services such as giving out copies of the transcript of stenographic notes.
The consultations were meant to come up with an idea of which "fees were exorbitant," he said.
De Vera said likewise unacceptable was the recent decision of the DOJ to impose legal fees ranging from P50 to more than P2000 will be collected from litigants transacting with prosecutors throughout the country by next month.
"It is the same as the situation in the SC and we plan to question it as well," de Vera said, claiming that otherwise the situation will entail additional burden for litigants, who he said, "will have to pay every step of the way."
The DOJ fees are to be collected pursuant to the Public Prosecutors Compensation Act (Republic Act 9279) signed into law by President Arroyo last March raising the salaries of prosecutors and state counsels covering about 1,600 state lawyers.
De Vera also dismissed claims made by the DOJ that the fees were meant to discourage frivolous suits. "That was not in the law and in any case, why should these frivolous cases prejudice those meritorious motions filed by practitioners."
The DOJ fees will come into effect 15 days after its publication.
Under the new schedule of fees among the highest amounts to be collected are from complainants charging another for electric pilferage (P2,000), libel (P1,000) or carnapping (P500 to P1,000) depending on the vehicle.
Charges for violation of the Social Security System (SSS) and Pag-ibig law, on the other hand, is subject to fees equivalent to five percent of the equivalent amount.
Fees to be collected from complainants in estafa cases range from P150 to over P1,000 depending on the amount of damage.
The fees also cover other offenses such as theft, reckless imprudence, oral defamation and all other cases with damages.
A P500 fee are also to be collected upon filing of motions for reinvestigation while a P200 charge is collected upon the filing of a motion for inhibition of a prosecutor.
Clearances issued by prosecutors are also subject to fees ranging from those issued for local employment (P50) to firearm license (P1,000).
The salary increases could reach 40 percent of the basic salaries of prosecutors, state counsels and undersecretaries and will help stem the flow of talented state lawyers from going into private practice.
There is a 37 percent vacancy rate in the prosecutors' ranks.
The increases in pay will be in the form of special allowances to be sourced from the collection of fees.
In the case filed before the SC, the IBP said Republic Act 9227, which was used as basis for the recent rounds of increases in some legal fees collected by the court, was really a form of law illegally authorizing the High Court to exact taxes.
"RA 9227 called increased 'salaries' as increased 'allowances' and increased 'taxes' as increased 'legal fees' when in reality, these are salaries not allowances and taxes, not legal fees," the lawyers' group said, adding that the law was "enacted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse."
"Being an appropriation/revenue law, the bill from which it arose did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, in violation of the Constitution."
The law, the lawyers group added, "effectively transformed the legal fees imposed under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court into a tax, a revenue-generating measure, and consequently, its enactment resulted in the undue and invalid delegation of the inherently legislative power to tax, to the Judiciary and the Department of Budget and Management."
The lawyers focused on the fees imposed on motions filed before the court, which it said, was a "patent violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution."
"The blanket imposition of legal fees for all kinds of motions, without any distinction as to the nature of the motion, which is clearly prejudicial to the rights of litigants with legitimate basis to resort to the filing of legitimate motions as these litigants are lumped together with the litigants who file motions that are merely dilatory and /or pro forma in nature," the lawyers said.
The High Tribunal has agreed to "suspend until further others the new rates of legal fees."
Covered by the suspension are the new rates for the solemnization of marriages, the filing of motions and the new legal fee imposed on the filing of compulsory counterclaims.
(October 2, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
