There is a compelling, if perverse,  reason for Malacañang to tighten the monetary screws on the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court is the last bulwark of freedom, justice, and democracy in the land.

The SC can declare an act of the Executive department as unsconstitutional, thereby tying up its hands over how to run the government.

On two occasions – the first involving the creation of the Truth Commission and the second on the then postponement of the elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and the appointments of interim regional officials – the SC stopped Malacañang on its tracks.    

Is it any wonder then that the Palace is getting even, playing tit for tat for the High Tribunal’s back-to-back rebuke of the former’s initiatives?

But the High Court, riding a moral high horse on its co-equal and independent status with the Executive and the Legislative branches of government, is fighting back, and this small but brave paper is supporting its struggle for fiscal autonomy as it has done so in the past.       

And so we encourage all liberty-loving sectors to also support the SC in its fight for fiscal autonomy amid threats of losing almost P2 billion in its budget next year and of impeachment in yet another looming conflict with some congressmen.

Court Administrator and spokesman Midas Marquez said yesterday the Judiciary was banking on the Constitution in objecting to the Executive branch’s diversion of P1.98 billion in its proposed budget to new item called the miscellaneous personnel benefits fund.

“There’s always the Constitution. We have to go back to fundamental law and try to find out what the Constitution says. The Constitution is as clear as day when it comes to fiscal autonomy and non-reduction of the budget of the Judiciary,” Marquez was quoted by a major broadsheet as telling a press conference.

He cited Article VIII Section 3 of the Charter, which states: “The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year, and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.”

Aside from fiscal autonomy, Marquez said the Constitution also stipulates that the budget of the Judiciary shall not be lower than the previous budget. The Judiciary’s current budget for this year is P14.3 billion.

The SC official said he believed the Judiciary has the support of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on this issue. Earlier, Enrile said the Executive department should not have impounded the funds of the Judiciary.

For now, Marquez said they are banking on the assurance of the Department of Budget and Management that the diverted fund would still form part of the overall budget of the courts and will eventually be released to them.

He stressed, however, that the Judiciary has yet to see if this promise of DBM would materialize. “We’d like to believe the budget of the Judiciary remains at P15 billion. However, of course, that remains to be seen once the GAA (General Appropriations Act) is approved and signed into law come 2012. We will find out if really that forms part of the budget of Judiciary,” he said.

Marquez also lamented how this perennial issue on the budget of the Judiciary led recently to threat on impeachment of justices of the High Court.

“That’s very unfortunate. Perhaps they should get all the data first before [they] come up with those threats,” he appealed, referring to the plan of Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas to move for impeachment of SC justices should they strike down as unconstitutional the MPBF provision in the forthcoming 2012 General Appropriations Act.

The P23.4-billion special fund is among the suggested provisions for the proposed 2012 national budget, which is still undergoing deliberations in Congress. It can only be accessed once vacant offices are filled.