STATE auditors failed to abide with a critical provision of the law that created the Judicial Development Fund (JDF), lawmakers said on Tuesday.
Cavite Representative Elpidio Barzaga Jr. said state auditors from the Commission on Audit (COA) have failed to conduct regular quarterly audit on the so-called "judiciary pork barrel".
In Tuesday's hearing of House committee on justice, Barzaga asked state auditor Edna Lerit, who is the supervising auditor of the judiciary in 2012, if COA is regularly conducting a quarterly audit report as prescribed by Presidential Decree 1949, the law that created the JDF.
Lerit admitted that they failed to abide with the law's provision, citing the lack of qualified personnel to undertake the job.
Barzaga, however, said that it is not a valid excused.
"They brought out in the committee hearing that or in the COA observation that they are not able to comply with the requirement of quarterly audit, because of lack of personnel… they are a little bit lenient. Nasa batas, quarterly audit, that’s the mandate based on PD 1949," Barzaga said.
Meanwhile, Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Farinas, vice chair of the House committee on justice, said that the high court in September 1999 issued a resolution providing for other sources of JDF, which he claimed barred the government from receiving sources of income that SC generated from its activities because funds directly go to the JDF.
"Dapat sana diretso sa kaban ng bayan ang anomang income ng Korte Suprema, pero napupunta sa JDF na ang Chief Justice lamang ang may solong kapangyarihan na magdesisyon sa paggamit nito. Inaayos natin ang sistema," said Farinas in the sponsorship speech of his bill to reform the JDF.
Under the SC resolution, Farinas said the JDF includes in its income the following: sales of (aa) reports (of Decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) books, periodicals, pamphlets or the like, printed by the Supreme Court printing press or any other printing firm at the instance of or for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or Sandiganbayan or as the case may be; unserviceable equipment and pieces of furniture (such as vehicles, computers, typewriters, chairs, tables, etc.); disposable records or papers; and the pursuit or operation of transportation facilities for members and personnel of the Judiciary offered by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the lower courts; the grant of concessions to operate canteens or to provide other services; and Rentals of facilities; fees collected from Bar candidates, or participants of seminars/workshops or conferences offered or conducted by the Court; fees now authorized to be paid or collected by sheriffs, such as sheriff's commissions; interests on deposits of its income and among others.
"Pinalawak ang income ng JDF, isinama pati ang scrap at iba pa. Sa expanded order puwede pa silang maghanap ng income, hindi pa isinara ang zipper," the lawmaker said.
Farinas also questioned the portion of the high court's resolution, which states that (it) "shall not bar the future determination of other sources of the Judiciary Development Fund."
Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr., the panel chairperson, noted that based on 2012 COA report the SC allowed the use of P10.1 million JDF for motorcycle loan (P6.033-million); computer loan (P2.839-million), handgun loan (P1.196-million); and others (P30,562).
"Bakit pati loan mayroon? May baril pa? Hindi naman kasama iyan sa mandate ng JDF. Kapag bigay (allotted) ang pera, ibigay na natin ito, bakit i-invest ito? We are in public service and not an investment (company)," Tupas asked.
He also asked why there was P368-million under "JDF high yield savings with a fixed-term and fixed rate" at the Landbank (LBP) of the Philippines and other millions of pesos worth of assistance extended by SC to local government units (LGUs).
He also asked the SC if the P3-billion saving for unfilled positions in the judiciary ended up as allowances and bonuses for the court employees, judges and justices.
"Nagmamahal ang justice kasi itinataas ang legal fees at may epekto ito sa mga naghahanap ng hustisya sa korte. Bakit inilagay sa allowances at bonuses eh sira-sira ang court," the lawmaker said.
"Magkano ba talaga ang savings sa unfilled position ng Korte Suprema? Totoo ba na ang unfilled position savings noong 2003 ay P3 billion? At totoo rin ba na ang P3 billion na ito ay ginawang allowances at bonuses? Is that a policy now of the government na ang budget sa unfilled positions ay mapupunta sa allowances?" Tupas further asked.
The JDF is taken from docket and other legal fees paid by party litigants. At least 80 percent of the fund are given to employees in the form of cost of living allowances while 20 percent go to equipment and other facilities. (Sunnex)