The Judiciary and the Palace

THE proposed budget for 2012 wherein the budget of the Judiciary has been downgraded and placed in the bottom list has created a word war between the palace and the judicial department. Let me remind the readers of the principles in relation to the three branches of government.

Firstly, the Supreme Court is a constitutional body; it may not be abolished by the legislature, neither the executive. There are safeguards that ensure the independence of the judiciary, one of which is fiscal autonomy.

Another principle is the separation of powers of the three branches of government comprising the executive, legislative and the judiciary. This implies the existence of separate powers to which every branch is supreme within their domain and cannot encroach into the jurisdiction of the other. For instance, when the court mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a coordinate body, what it upholds is not its own superiority but the supremacy of the Constitution.

Going back to this issue between the palace and the judiciary, it is sad to note they are now engage in an exchange of words in which the other party proves the existence of its own fiscal autonomy while the other tries to control and undermine the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy.

I intently tackled this issue because of the fear that the public may not know the real essence of the powers of both branches. There is no question that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not the President’s choice and appointee. Indeed, during the President’s taking of his oath of office, it wasn’t the Chief Justice that administered his oath. Next was the series of controversial decisions of the court contrary to what the President wants; these manifest that there exists a gap between the two branches.

In my own point of understanding, this is not good for the government bureaucracy. The Palace should not have commented on the Supreme Court and vice versa. They are supposed to calm down and work as part of the government system. The Palace must refrain from making statements against the Court so as not to lead the public in thinking what the Court should do it is in a better position to decide under its domain and powers.

On the other hand, the Court should uphold its constitutional supremacy and not its position. There should have exist a sense of interdependence and not independence; not overpowering one and the other. In government service, the simple practice of unity and cooperation is vital to public service. The palace should let the Court work according to its sense of responsibilities while the Court should let the palace work on its own volition in light of its powers and functions. 

(Issue of Oct. 17-23, 2011)