In “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace), we are taught: “In a State ruled by law the power to inflict punishment is correctly entrusted to the courts. In defining the proper relationships between the legislative, executive and judicial powers, the Constitutions of modern States guarantee the judicial power the necessary independence in the realm of law.” (n. 402) The Compendium here was citing an allocution of St. John Paul II to Italian judges.
For the judiciary to be fair, it must be free, and it cannot be free if its members are harassed by threats and intimidation and if those who serve on the Bench and as personnel of the court must be in constant dread of a diminution in benefits and privileges.
This is exactly the situation that seems to be dawning on the judiciary in the Philippines. Of late, we have been troubled by threats levelled particularly against members of the Supreme Court for what some legislators perceive to be the refusal of the Chief Justice to heed a summons by Congress to appear, and for the supposed misuse of the Judiciary Development Fund created by Presidential Decree No. 1949.
Respect the Judiciary
We urge respect for the Judiciary, precisely because it does not have the means to defend itself. We urge it also for the sake of the nation that must always hold its judiciary in highest regard and esteem. The courtesies that are due the heads of the government’s coordinate branches should, at all times, be maintained and the independence of the judiciary, preserved. This is not only the letter of the Constitution. It is its spirit as well. It is also a moral requirement, for judging, which is the principal concern of the courts, is the moral act of distributive justice: allocating rights and obligations.
Independence of the Judiciary
An independent judiciary is the key safeguard of people’s rights against the heavy hand of the State and the caprice of officials and private individuals. It is this protective institution that is assailed when justices and judges are needlessly threatened with removal from office when politicians are displeased by their decisions or the considered positions they take!
Accountability to Constitutional Bodies
The Judiciary Development Fund, generated from docket fees and other sources, has, by law, been placed within the administrative control of the Chief Justice. Let it be so. This is not to say that the Fund can be used in whatever manner the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court may be pleased to use it. The Constitution has so wisely provided for a system by which all government offices, the judiciary included, are subject to audit. But we consider it repugnant to the very idea of the autonomy that the judiciary should enjoy for the Chief Justice to be asked to account to a congressional committee for the use of the funds. Yes, the Chief Justice owes it to the people to give an accounting of the use of the funds, but through the office tasked by the Constitution to conduct such an audit.
We stand with the judiciary in its struggle to maintain its independence.
We stand with our Legislators insofar as they endeavor to revisit the expenditure of public funds and as they take the moral high-ground of setting aside self-interest by rejecting any scheme or device by which they gain access once more to funds in ways already held in contravention of the Fundamental Law of the land.
August 9, 2014
+ SOCRATES B. VILLEGAS, D.D.
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President, CBCP
