Vicon B.

De Guzman
2-Teehankee

Legal Writing
Atty. Donelle Khan

The Guardian of the Constitution: The Judiciary

The Judicial Department is an essential branch of every

democratic system of government. Although the Judiciary holds
neither purse nor sword, it is an indispensable part of our
government in safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution. Its
purpose is to ascertain that the laws be faithfully implemented and
that no person, natural or juridical, shall be deprived of their mandated
rights without due process of law. As an important branch of the
government clothed with powers equal with that of Executive and the
Legislative, the Judiciary is tasked to correct the errors that the other
branches might carry out that is not in conformity with the
Constitution; and assert its solemn duty to uphold the Constitution and
the laws of the land. Before the advent of the 1987 Constitution, the
Judiciarys powers were not at par with the Executive and Legislative
branches. More so when the 1973 Charter was still in operation, its
provisions were insufficient to grant the Court the authority to check
the overpowering of the Executive and thus resulted to the tyrannical
rule of the deposed dictator.
The present 1987 Constitution has now endowed the Executive,
Legislative and Judicial Departments with powers considered necessary
to achieve equilibrium between authority and liberty and prescribe the
permanent framework of our system of government. In order that no
tyrant will again rise to seize and exploit the sanctity of the
government, the new Constitution has specifically provided a rather
comprehensive and wide-ranging definition of Judicial Power. Article VIII
Section 1 provides that, Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government. Furthermore, the separation of powers provides that
each department has its own mandated powers the Executive
implements the laws, the Legislative formulates the laws, and the
Judiciary applies the laws and that one must not encroach upon the
prerogative of the other in the performance of its duties. Although the
prohibition of encroachment, our government system also provides a
system of checks and balances to allow stability and equilibrium and
that no branch arbitrarily exceeds its authority to the prejudice of the
other branches. Much to say, the Judiciary in my opinion, with the duty

to uphold the highest law of the land has the profound capacity to
make this democratic system of government viable.
But even the most perfect system has its flaws; many times our
government has come into conflict that involves either two or all the
branches
clashing.
Recently,
the
courts
declaration
of
unconstitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
of the Legislature and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of
the Executive thru the Department of Budget and Management has
sparked an ongoing rift; with the Executive and Legislative against the
Judiciary.
The issue on DAP was the turning point of events that now
threatens to undermine Judicial Independence. The High Court voted a
unanimous 13-0 against the DAP and ruled the following matters as
unconstitutional: the allotment of funds for projects, activities, and
programs not provided in the General Appropriations Act; the creation
of savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and the withdrawal of
these funds for implementing agencies; and the cross-border transfers
of the savings from one branch of government to another. The
Supreme Courts ruling emphasizes the power of the purse of the
Congress and that the Executive had usurped this power when it
implemented the DAP without proper legislation from the Legislative
Department. But despite the ruling, President Aquino was discontented
with the decision and filed a motion for reconsideration on the Courts
decision. He even scathingly attacked the Supreme Court for not
considering the positive effects that the programs and projects that
were implemented by the DAP.
As a student of law, we are frequently taught that the
Constitution is the highest law of the land and that abiding on its
mandate is what every citizen must do. In the words of Justice Cruz, it
clearly states that The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to
which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including
the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid,
however noble its intention, if it is in conflict with the Constitution. The
Constitution must ever remain supreme. We cannot deny the fact that
the programs and projects implemented thru the DAP was greatly
beneficial to the public in general. It clearly manifests the intention of
the Aquino administration to stick to its famed aphorism of Tuwid na
Daan. But achieving this path is no walk in the park, and still the
directive of the law must be constantly followed. The Judiciary must
stand its ground and live up to its name as the Guardian of the
Constitution and correct whatever tampering to suit political
expediencies done by the administration. It is a well settled principle in
our jurisdiction that ours is a government of laws and not of men. The
noblest intentions of our leaders to uplift our socio-economic standards
will amount to nothing if it does not conform to the mandates of the
law. It is not upon the will of one person, say the President, that the

functions of the government will be upon his prerogative. President

Aquinos action was a direct condescension to the High Courts
prerogative of upholding its sacred duty. One would also expect that
Chief Justice Sereno would empathize with the President because she
was an appointee of the administration after Chief Justice Corona was
impeached, but the Magistrates showed impartiality and independence
when it handed down its decision. It showed the strong stand of the
Court not to be flailed by the influence of President and furthers judicial
independence. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court recognized the
positive effects of the discredited spending program when it applied
the Doctrine of Operative Fact. This doctrine recognizes the
consequences resulting from the implementation of the executive act
and permits it to take effect; such as the roads, schools, hospitals and
homes for the homeless funded by the DAP which physical undoing
would be impossible as it would result in the wasteful destruction of
the infrastructure already built. But it will not absolve the proponents if
it would be proved that they acted in bad faith.
The scenario got even turbulent when the Legislative Department
entered the picture. The House of Representatives, which is a majority
of pro-administration lawmakers, initiated a bill to abolish the Judiciary
Development Fund. It has apparently become a two versus one
struggle, with the Executive and Legislative bodies joining forces
against the Judiciary. The House of Representatives move seems like
an immediate vindication against the Judiciary when it also ruled as
unconstitutional the PDAF of the legislators. The Judiciary Development
Fund was promulgated by virtue of P.D. 1949 on 1984 during the term
of President Marcos. This fund comes from legal fees; bar examination
fees; interest on deposits of the Judiciarys income; confiscated bail
bonds; income from publications of the Supreme Court Printing Press;
and rentals of facilities in Halls of Justice around the country. The bills
proponent, Congressman Neil Tupas, aims to scrap the JDF and replace
it with the Judiciary Support Fund (JSF). This new scheme for the
Judiciary will allow the funds not be deposited directly to the depository
of the Supreme Court but will be deposited with the National Treasury
as a Special Account in the General Fund . It allows seventy percent to
be utilized for the payment of allowances of the members and
personnel of the judiciary; fifteen percent for the acquisition,
maintenance and repair of office equipment and facilities; and fifteen
percent for the maintenance and repair of Hall of Justice buildings.
Congressman Tupas said that the JDF is also a discretionary fund much
like the PDAF and the DAP. It allows the funds to be administered under
the discretion of a public official to be spent for a public purpose, in
which the Chief Justice has the sole discretion; thus it was dubbed by
experts as the Judicial Pork Barrel. And so with the PDAF and DAP
being declared unconstitutional, the two other branches would have
thought that why not the Judiciary practice self-evaluation and look at
their own fence if it dispenses its funds truthfully. With this bill in

consideration, one educated in the law would regard this as an

infringement against the Courts Fiscal Autonomy. Under this principle,
appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature
below the amount appropriated for the previous year. This bill will be
the scrutiny of constitutional experts if such would be passed and be
implemented.
With much of the issues now at hand, the independence of the
Judiciary remains at stake with the recent course of actions that the
other two branches initiated. The Court decisions regarding the
unconstitutionality of the PDAF and DAP showed that the Constitution
must be upheld at all times, right or wrong its mandates should remain
firm. As a student of law, I stand by the Judiciary in their stand to guard
the sanctity of the Constitution. The law dictates every conduct that
must be adhered in order for this nation to achieve its glory. But the
officials of courts the must be accountable also, they must live up to
their oaths of upholding the Constitution and the laws; and must not be
an agent of its deterioration. Many people have seemed to lose their
trusts in the Courts of Justice because some officers of the court have
disgraced their sacred duty and conceded for greed and malice.
Honesty is still the best policy and it is still the best quality of an officer
of the courts, this character must be at hand to regain the trust of the
public. As a citizen, I have observed the progress that this present
administration has achieved. Infrastructures built and improvements in
governance cannot be tolerated. On the part of the economy, the world
has now acknowledged our capacity to be a better nation. Although
some may say that they do not feel the progress yet but the ratings
given by renowned experts may be sufficient proof that the
administration is exerting effort. We must also do our part in helping
the administration achieve progress. Constructive criticisms are
acceptable and not criticize just to degrade the administration.
The three branches will and must collide, it is in the nature of a
democratic and republican state that the governmental bodies deviate
but in the end must come to a resolve for the welfare of the nation.
The bottom line is public accountability; Public office is a public trust as
enshrined in our Constitution. Public officers whether in the Executive,
Legislative or Judicial Departments must conform to this principle and
not rely on their personal motives. It is the only way that the essence
of the Constitution will be truthfully observed and maintained. The
Judiciary is the guardian of the constitution; it must be steadfast to
preserve its directives in order that the majesty of its law will not be
usurped by the pretenders of illegitimate power. The other two
branches must remain to the spirit of the law and not be vindictive
enough when the Judiciary defends its grounds resulting to undermine
its independence. The system of checks and balances must carry on as
a constitutional process but the separation of powers must not be left
out to delineate boundaries. This continuing saga of the three equal

branches in our government will persist as it will mold the outcome of

our country in the future. There will be clashes, there will be conflicts
but the rule of law must be upheld. As it is always said, Ours is
government of laws and not of men, it is the law that holds our
correlation with each other, to our society and with the government; it
is what holds our society not to fall into chaos. The law was our key to
achieve a functioning society it is our key to achieve utopia. Abiding in
the law and not on our own choice is our duty in building our nation.
Selfish wants and ambitions must be set aside and the welfare of the
entire nation must be a priority.
Lawless are they that make their wills their law.
-William Shakespeare