QUO VADIS JUDGES
Judge Maria Cecilia I. Austria
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City
Vice-President for Administration, PJA
At the meeting held by the officers and directors of the Philippine Judges Association last month, President Tony Eugenio prompted for suggestions for plan of actions to be taken by the PJA regarding the controversial impasse of the payment of salary differentials of the Judges. Mostly cheered among the propositions were mass leave, rallies and advertisements in newspapers to express condemnation - anything that is aggressive and bold. Believing that any view was welcome to express, I rose to say that any such action is premature because the Supreme Court has yet o rule on certain unresolved issues in the pending petitions. I'm not sure whether I was able to finish what I was saying because suddenly there came upon a rambling dissonance I involuntarily evoked which, although incomprehensible, unmistakably implied that I should shut up and sit down.
I might have joined their reproach if it were somebody else’s gibberish rather than my own or I would have spoken ad hominem tu quoque were it not for the privilege of accidentally knowing some significant details of the Judges’ discomfiture. By fate, it so happened that in another PJA meeting earlier held, I was assigned by President Eugenio to draft a resolution presenting the PJA’s position about the controversy to be submitted to the Honorable Chief Justice Corona. From the statutes, Executive Orders, Supreme Court Orders and Resolutions that I gathered, I came to know the following antecedents that I thought worth sharing:
THE STATUTORY BASIS OF OUR PRESENT SALARY RATE
The salary grade for RTC Judges under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, REPUBLIC ACT 6758 a.k.a. The Salary Standardization Law, is Grade 29 beginning at the rate of P17,075 for the first of eight (8) step increments. In the year 2001, by virtue of EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 22, the first step of salary Grade 29 was raised to P25,333.
In 2007. Executive Order No. 611 authorized compensation adjustments for government personnel effective July 1, 2007, whereby the rate for the first step of Salary Grade 29 is P27,866.
Under Executive Order No. 719, another 10% increase was authorized as of June 30, 2008 making the rate of Grade 29 beginning at P30,653. Varying only in step increments depending on the number of years of service, this is the prevailing salary rate of RTC Judges and the reasons are explained below.
THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCE OF JUDGES (SAJ)
Republic Act No. 9227 which was made effective on October 23, 2003 is commonly known as the SAJ LAW. It’s title is “AN ACT GRANTING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN THE FORM OF SPECIAL ALLOWANCES FOR JUSTICES, JUDGES AND ALL OTHER POSITIONS IN THE JUDICIARY WITH THE EQUIVALENT RANK OF JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE”
To implement the SAJ Law, SAJ FUND was created by the SC by virtue of Joint Circular No. 2004 dated January 13, 2004 between the SC and the DBM entitled “Guidelines to Cover Funding Source for the Grant of Special Allowance Authorized Under Republic Act No. 9227.”
Under Section 2 of the SAJ Law, all justices, judges and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals of the Regional Trial Court as authorized under existing laws shall be granted special allowances equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the basic monthly salary specified for their respective salary grades under Republic Act No. 6758, to be implemented for a period of four (4) years.
By 2007, the special allowance of the members of the bench under the SAJ law was fully implemented
“DIMINUTION” OF THE JUDGES’ SAJ;
As mentioned earlier, Executive Order No. 611 was issued by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, authorizing a 10% increase in the basic salaries of civilian government personnel in 2007. Section 8 thereof provides that the DBM shall prepare and issue the necessary rules and regulations for its implementation.
DBM thus issued Budget Circular No. 511 prescribing the Rules and Regulations on the Grant of Compensation Adjustments to National Government Personnel Effective July 1, 2007. Another DBM Circular No. 2007-9 was issued on June 29, 2007 providing “Additional Guidelines in the Release of Funds to Cover Compensation and Adjustments of National Government Personnel” where the following provisions appear:
4.0 In cases where personnel of national government agencies have been granted special allowances under special laws and said allowances are considered as advance payment of any future increase in basic salary as may be provided by law, the following policies shall be adopted:
4.1 The special allowance equivalent to the amount of authorized increase under EO No. 611 shall be integrated into the basic salary.
4.2 Any excess in the amount of special allowance not converted as part of the basic salary shall continue to be granted as such.
4.1 The special allowance equivalent to the amount of authorized increase under EO No. 611 shall be integrated into the basic salary.
4.2 Any excess in the amount of special allowance not converted as part of the basic salary shall continue to be granted as such.
At this juncture, it should be pointed out that the special allowances referred to in the above provision of the DBM Circular as advance payment of future increases in basic salary has for its basis Section 6 of RA 9227 that reads as follows -
SECTION 6. Effects of Subsequent Salary Increase. – Upon implementation of any subsequent increase in the salary rates provided under Republic Act No. 6758, as amended, all special allowances granted under this Act to justices, judges and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the Regional Trial Court as authorized under existing laws and any additional allowance granted to other personnel of the Judiciary shall be considered as an implementation of the said salary increases as may be provided by law. The special allowance equivalent to the increase in the basic salary as may be provided by law shall be converted as part of basic salary: Provided, that, any excess in the amount of speicial allowance not converted as part of the basic salary shall continue to be granted as such.
On March 28, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution the dispositive portion of which states:
“WHEREFORE, the Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, is hereby instructed:
To deduct 10% from the monthly SAJ of incumbent justices, judges and judiciary officials with the equivalent ranks of CA Justices and RTC Judges corresponding to the 10% increase in their basic salary as authorized under E.O. No. 611; and
To source the 10% salary increase from the SAJ fund.
SO ORDERED.”
In 2008, Executive Order No. 719 was issued providing for another 10% increase over the basic monthly salary as of June 30, 2008 of classified government employess including the Judges.
Again, by virtue of Resolution dated September 16, 2008, in A.M. No. 08-9-1-SC, the SC Court authorized the Fiscal Management and Budge Office to (a) implement the 10% salary increase authorized under Executive Order No. 719 effective July 1, 2008 and to deduct 10% from the monthly SAJ of incumbent justices, judges and judiciary officials with the equivalent ranks of CA Justices and RTC Judges corresponding to the 10% increase in their basic salary as authorized under E.O. No. 719 and to source the 10% salary increase from the SAJ fund.
Thus in the implementation of EO 611 and EO 719, the respective 10% salary increases of the incumbent justices, judges and judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of CA justices and RTC judges were sourced from the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) and with the corresponding deduction from the monthly SAJ; both were upon the imprimatur of the SC by virtue of formal SC Resolutions.
THE SALARY THAT JUDGES RECEIVE AT PRESENT
On June 17, 2009, Senate and Congress issued JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4 AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL AND THE BASE PAY SCHEDULE OF MILITARY AND UNIFORMED PERSONNEL IN THE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
On even date, Pres. Arroyo issued EO 811 entitled “Adopting the First Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule of Civilian Personnel and Base Pay Schedule of Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, as well as the Modified Position Classification System Pursuant to Senate and House of Representative Joint Resolution No. 4, S. 2009”
Before the SC could deduct once more from the monthly SAJ the amount to be added to the salary increase for 2009 to correspond to the increases authorized under EO 811, a Petition was filed by the Presiding Judges of Iloilo RTC by way of an administrative matter in Re A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC dated July 3, 2009, the Presiding Judges of the RTC of Iloilo under the caption “QUERY” specifically asking for clarification “as to the effect of salary increases provided for in the Executive Orders of the President to the SAJ of the Judges”. In that petition, the Iloilo Judges sought to prohibit the sourcing of the increases from the SAJ arguing that:
"the transfer of portions of the SAJ to the basic pay are being subjected to tax and other deductions, hence has effectively diminished the income of Justices and Judges, while other beneficiaries of the salary increases fully enjoy the fruits of the increases prescribed by law and thus deviates from the application of the equal protection clause under the Constitution."
The Philippine Judges Association (PJA) in a pleading captioned Supplement to Petition dated August 3, 2009, came up with additional argument as follows:
“(that) although the RTC Judges, CA Justices and other court officials with equivalent ranks are the direct beneficiaries of R.A. No. 9227 (SAJ Law), all other court personnel not covered by the SAJ Law may benefit therefrom if there is a surplus after payment of the SAJ of RTC Judges and CA Justices; that once their salary increases have reached 100% of their allowance under the SAJ Law, the RTC Judges and CA Justices would no longer be entitled to SAJ because their entire SAJ would then have been completely converted into salary; and that the strict application of Section 6 of the SAJ Law would result in a diminution of benefits that they are entitled to receive;
In an en banc resolution dated October 27, 2009. the Honorable Supreme Court issued STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER for A.M. 07-8-03-SC as well in A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC pertinent portions of which are quoted hereunder as follows:
“WHEREFORE, In A.M. N0. 07-8-03-SC, acting on the Petition for Prohibition dated July 13, 2009 and filed on August 27, 2009, by the Regional Trial Court Judges of Iloilo City, and the Supplement to Petition dated August 3, 2009 (on the Letter-Petition dated June 29, 2009 of Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.) by petitioner Philippine Judges Assocation x x x”
“The existing procedure in funding salary increases shall be maintained. In A.M. No. 07-8-3-SC, the incumbent justices, judges and judiciary officials with the equivalent ranks of Justices of the Court of Appeals and Judges of the Regional Trial Court shall continue to receive the amount of SAJ they were receiving at the last month of the four (4) year implementation period of Republic Act N0. 9227, with the other court personnel receiving the additional allowance in an amount that will depend on a surplus in the SAJ Fund. x x x”
NOW THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, the Department of Budget and Management, its agents, representatives or persons acting in its place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from implementing in A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC the provision of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9227 insofar as the same is applied to the 10% salary increases under Executive Order N0. 611 as of July 1, 2007, Executive Order N0. 719 as of July 1, 2008 and Executive order No. 811 as of July 1, 2009, in relation to Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, Series of 2009, effective June 17, 2009, of the justices, judges and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of Justices of the Court of Appeals and Judges of the Regional Trial Court, pertaining to the corresponding deduction on their monthly SAJ x x x.”
It should be noted that unlike in EO 611 and EO 719, no Resolution was issued by the Supreme Court directed to the Finance Management and Budget Officer of the Supreme Court giving specific instructions for the implementation of Executive Order No. 811 nor any guidance as where to source its funding. What was issued instead was the subject STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER.
Our salary rate at present therefore remains based on the rate prescribed under EO 719 and upon express and formal authority of SC Resolution No. A.M. No. 08-9-1-SC. Meanwhile, our SAJ has been reduced by 20%, also by virtue of SC Resolutions.
ACTIONS SO FAR TAKEN BY THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION
1. RESOLUTION
Prescinding from what was perceived to be ambiguous and passive phrasing of the STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER, the PJA passed a Resolution which on the main requested the Supreme Court to specifically order the Department of Budget and Management to issue the SARO to cover the implementation of the salary adjustments of the members of the bench under EO No. 611, EO No. 719 and EO No. 811 in relation to Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, Series of 2009;
2. MOTION
The requests contained in the Resolution was formally integrated in the pending petitions by way of Motion. It was prayed that EO 811 insofar as Justices and Judges in the Judiciary are concerned should be implemented as soon as possible and without any more delay hence DBM should be ordered to release the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) to cover the salary adjustment provided for by Executive Order No. 811 effective July 1, 2009. The honourable Supreme Court was also reminded and thus urged to resolve the pending incident of reconciliation of the conflicting interpretations of the provisions of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9227, paragraph 2 (a) of Republic Act Nos. 9401 and 9498 with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9227 and other executive issuances and circulars.
To date the motion remains unresolved. Also, despite said motion the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the noted conflicting interpretations of the provisions of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9227, paragraph 2 (a) of Republic Act Nos. 9401 and 9498 with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9227 and other executive issuances and circulars.
3. REQUEST FOR AUDIENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT
The newspaper Philippine Daily Inquirer on December 10 reported that “The PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION (PJA) yesterday requested an audience with President Aquino so that they can explain their appeal for the proposed judiciary budget for 2011to be increased by P1.5 billion… that would cover salary differentials of lower court judges from July 2007 to the present.
4. WEARING BLACK DURING MONDAYS
All the members of the PJA together with members of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines and the Municipal Trial Court Judges Association of the Philippines have been urged to wear black on Mondays to dramatize their appeal to legislators convening on the 2011 national budget.
POINTS FOR REFLECTION
President Eugenio was also reported to call for a summit of all first and second levels Judges of the Court to explore other courses of action. For this purpose and more, I raise the following points for the Judges' personal deliberation.
1. The deductions from the monthly SAJ to answer for the respective 10% salary increases under EO 611 and EO 719 were expressly authorized by SC Resolutions. By taking the position that Judges are now entitled to be paid salary differentials beginning July 1, 2007, are the Judges in effect saying that the status quo ante order reversed or invalidated those 2 previous SC resolutions?
2. The Judges contend that Section 6 of RA 9227 which is the basis for the deduction from the SAJ to be applied to subsequent salary increases offends the equal protection clause or the proscription against non-diminution of salaries. Is it not a basic legal principle that laws are presumed just and legal unless and until so declared unconstitutional by a competent court?
3. In the status quo ante order itself, the Supreme Court noted that there is a need for reconciliation of the conflicting interpretations of the provisions of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9227, paragraph 2 (a) of Republic Act Nos. 9401 and 9498 with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9227 and other executive issuances and circulars. By insisting that we are entitled for payment of salary differentials for the deducted SAJ, is it not that Judges are proceeding upon the assumption that the conflict of interpretation would be resolved in favor of non-applicability of Section 6 of RA 9227? Are we then saying that there is no more need for the Supreme Court to make any such reconciliation of conflicting interpretation after all?
4. The petitions on which the Supreme Court rendered the status quo ante order are in the nature of administrative matters, captioned as “query”. Can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of Section 6 of RA 9227 in these petitions given that the executive branch and the concerned agencies and officials were not impleaded? Can they be bound in a case where they are not made parties? Is it not jurisdictional for any challenge on the constitutionality of a statute or any of its provisions that the Solicitor General be notified and given the opportunity to defend its constitutionality pursuant to Sec. 3 of Rule 63?
5. Considering the provisions of Rule 10 of the National Budget Circular No. 511 vesting theresponsibility of implementing the salary increases upon the Head of Agency, "who shall be personally liable" and in view of the Judges’ position that there was a mistake in sourcing the increases in the salary of Judges, will there not be created a legal sequitur that the Chief Justice, as head of the judiciary, be made personally liable for the erronous implementation of the salary increases? Parenthetically, as the implementation of the salary increases is vested upon the Head of Agency, is there not a need for specific instructions for the execution of EO 811 coming from the Chief Justice or from the Supreme Court in the same breath as when EO 611 and EO 719 were implemented? Or are we saying that the injunctive wordings of the STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER sufficient for its execution, viz:
“NOW THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, the Department of Budget and Management, its agents, representatives or persons acting in its place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from implementing in A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC the provision of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9227 insofar as the same is applied to the 10% salary increases under Executive Order N0. 611 as of July 1, 2007, Executive Order N0. 719 as of July 1, 2008 and Executive order No. 811 as of July 1, 2009, in relation to Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, Series of 2009, effective June 17, 2009, of the justices, judges and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of Justices of the Court of Appeals and Judges of the Regional Trial Court, pertaining to the corresponding deduction on their monthly SAJ x x x.”
6. Is there any explicit provision in the STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER quoted above wherein the Supreme Court stated that Judges are to paid salary differentials? Aren't Judges only making out such inference from the injunction against non-implementation of Section 6 of RA 9227?
7. The main argument of Judges for the claim for salary differential is hinged on the equal protection clause and non-diminution of salary of the Constitution. Will this argument hold true in the second tranche of the implementation of the 2009 modified salary rate per Joint Resolution No. 4, considering that the latter provides rates higher than the compensation scheme under RA 6758 as amended by EO 611 and 719 and therefore even if subjected to tax the judges’ salary will no longer be “diminished”?
8. Will Judges not be prejudiced if the STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER will continue to be effective once the second tranche of the modified salary scheme is implemented in the sense that it will continue to hold the effectivity of the increase of salary, especially considering that its execution against the executive department is highly debatable?
In the ancient times, the bearer of bad tidings was killed as rhetorically thought up by Sophocles in Antigone -"No one loves the messenger who brings bad news". Figuratively speaking, I was just about to be skinned in my opening narrative but behold, my rebuke during the said meeting was not the end for my beguiled opinion. Lady in shining armor for me that day was ACA Jenny Delorino, who shared some of my thoughts and goaded the group the proverbial line hear before thou strike. Through brief and mostly blurry explanation, everybody seemed to see some merit to my proposition, but I was told to make myself more clearly. This paper is an attempt to do just that.
We are no longer in the ancient times, but the metaphoric line of shooting the messenger managed to survive. I try not to be anxious about the ironic possibility of igniting the contempt of my collegues because what I bore here, although ominous, are hemmed by nothing but facts and my objects are not the archaic barbarians of the old times but the men and women in robe who are honourable, competent and independent.
"Whither goest thou Judges?"
No comments:
Post a Comment