ERNESTO FRANCISCO, JR. VS.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003
Ccarpio Morales, j.:

Facts: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution which directed the
Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements
and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
Then on June 2, 2003, former President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief
Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices. The complaint was endorsed and was referred to
the House Committee in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution.

The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was
"sufficient in form, but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance.
On October 23, 2003, a second impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr., founded on the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House
Resolution. This second impeachment complaint was accompanied by a "Resolution of
Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of
Representatives.

The second impeachment complaint charges the Chief Justice with alleged unlawful underpayment of the
cost of living allowances of members and personnel of the judiciary and the unlawful disbursement of the
JDF for certain infrastructure projects and acquisition of motor vehicles.

Issues:

Whether or not congress can assail the wisdom and legality of the allocation and utilization of the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

Held:

No.

Section 1 of PD 1949 imposes the following percentage limits on the use of the JDF:

That at least eighty percent (80%) of the Fund shall be used for cost of living allowances, and not more
than twenty percent (20%) of the said Fund shall be used for office equipment and facilities of the Courts
located where the legal fees are collected; Provided, further, That said allowances of the members and
personnel of the Judiciary shall be distributed in proportion of their basic salaries; and, Provided, finally,
That bigger allowances may be granted to those receiving a basic salary of less than P1,000.00 a month.

Section 2 thereof grants to the Chief Justice the sole and exclusive power to authorize disbursements and
expenditures of the JDF:

SECTION 2. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall administer and allocate the Fund and shall
have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve and authorize disbursements and expenditures of the
Fund in accordance with the guidelines set in this Decree and its implementing rules and regulations.
(Underscoring supplied).

Section 3 of the same law empowers the Commission on Audit (COA) to make a quarterly audit of the
JDF:

SECTION 3. The amounts accruing to the Fund shall be deposited by the Chief Justice or his duly
authorized representative in an authorized government depository bank or private bank owned or
controlled by the Government, and the income or interest earned shall likewise form part of the Fund. The
Commission on Audit through the Auditor of the Supreme Court or his duly authorized representative
shall quarterly audit the receipts, revenues, uses, disbursements and expenditures of the Fund, and shall
submit the appropriate report in writing to the Chairman of the Commission on Audit and to the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, copy furnished the Presiding Appellate Justice of the Intermediate
Appellate Court and all Executive Judges. (Underscoring supplied).

It is clear from PD 1949 that it is the COA, not Congress, that has the power to audit the disbursements of
the JDF and determine if the same comply with the 80-20 ratio set by the law.