Tupas expects SC’s cooperation when House probe on JDF resumes

The Supreme Court no longer has an excuse to skip the House of Representatives’ investigation on the use of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) since it has put the controversy surrounding the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) to rest, a lawmaker said Sunday.

House Justice Committee chairperson Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. said he expects the SC to “cooperate” when the panel resumes its probe on the JDF before Congress adjourns sine die (with no date set for the next hearing) in June—and answer questions on how the fund has been used by the judiciary over the years.

“Before the sine die adjournment sa June, sana makapag-hearing kami. ‘Yun ang target namin,” Tupas said in an interview over dzBB radio. “And I hope kapag nag-set na kami ng hearing, magko-cooperate na at dadalo ang Korte Suprema kasi ‘yong ginawa nilang rason—na para sa amin ay hindi naman rason yung pending na MR [motion for reconsideration] on DAP—tapos na ‘yun, disposed of na ‘yun.”

In August 2014, the House conducted a hearing to deliberate on two House bills filed by Tupas and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas to abolish and overhaul, respectively, the JDF. Sereno. however, skipped the hearing, saying in a letter that she considers the House inquiry "premature" and "inappropriate.”

Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva showed up at the House six days later for the judiciary’s budget briefing but still refused to answer questions about the discretionary fund.

Earlier this year, the SC ruled with finality on the case involving the Aquino administration’s controversial economic stimulus initiative, removing one act from the list of those previously declared as illegal and ruling that only authors of DAP projects could be held liable.

According to Supreme Court Public Information Office chief Theodore Te, the SC en banc lowered the number of unconstitutional acts under the DAP from four to three.

Judiciary not exempted

With the SC striking down both the DAP and the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) partially and in full, respectively, Tupas said there is no reason for the High Court to maintain the JDF, which he called the judiciary’s own pork barrel fund.

“Definitely, [the JDF] is a pork barrel. Pag binasa mo yung 1984 law [which created it], PD [Presidential Decree] 1949… talagang magiging discretionary fund siya, na ‘yun ang tinatawag nilang similar to the PDAF of the legislature,” he said.

“Let’s say ‘yung PDAF hindi pwede. ‘Yung DAP hindi pwede. Dapat hindi pwede sa lahat ‘yon. Hindi naman pwede na hindi pwede sa ibang ahensya o department pero kami, exception dito sa judiciary,” he added.

Tupas believes the use of the JDF should be scrutinized especially now that the judiciary is beset with allegations of corruption such as the alleged proliferation of “TROs (temporary restraining orders) for sale.”

“Para sa akin, we cannot talk about judicial reforms without reforming or abolishing ‘yung JDF… Kailangang i-reform ‘yung perang pinag-uusapan at may mga allegations of corruption at lack of transparency with respect to the JDF,” he said. — Xianne Arcangel/BM, GMA News