Palace to SC: 'When is a final decision final?'

When is a final decision final? This was the question Malacañang tossed back on Friday to the Supreme Court after being accused earlier by Chief Justice Renato Corona of attempting to destroy the independence of the judiciary. At a press briefing, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda reiterated that it was the high tribunal that brought upon itself the criticisms it received particularly on the recalled decision involving the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP). “When is a final decision final? Kung nag-desisyon na po sila sa FASAP na final decision at executory na, bakit biglang magkakaroon ng isang pagbabawi sa desisyon? Hindi ba iyon nakakasira ng kredibilidad ng Korte Suprema?" he said. "Sila po ang final arbiter at kung sila po ay nagsabi na final na po ang desisyon, ‘di ba final na ‘yun? Parang major, major, ‘di final, final ngayon," he added. In a two-page resolution issued on Oct. 4, the court en banc took back the “final entry of judgment" which earlier declared as illegal PAL’s retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants after they went on strike back in 1998. The latest high court resolution – the fourth ruling it has made so far – also took back its order to PAL’s owner, businessman Lucio Tan, to pay P3 billion in favor of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association (FASAP). On Thursday, Corona said the Aquino administration has been involved in "insidious attempts" to "destroy" the independence of the judiciary through budget cuts and threats to impeach magistrates. Budget cuts Asked on the reaction of President Benigno Aquino III on Corona, Lacierda said the Chief Executive agreed with the statement issued earlier by Palace officials. "He (Aquino) agrees with our statement. Nagtataka rin lang po siya kung ano ba talaga ang posisyon ng Supreme Court dito," he said. He reiterated that the issue on the budget cuts of the judiciary has already been settled. "I don’t know why Chief Justice Corona sought to make a statement on the budget of the judiciary when it is already been stated a number of times in public by both Senator Drilon and from our offices that we will respect fiscal autonomy," he said. Asked if Malacañang has plans to have a dialogue with the judiciary, Lacierda said there is no need to. "There’s no need for us to meet with either the judiciary or with the judiciary primarily because this is already been agreed upon with the Senate and the House," he said. "This is already a settled issue. We’ve already agreed with the House and the Senate that we will respect the fiscal autonomy subject of course to the request or to the condition that they report on a quarterly basis where the money has been used," he added. He, however, clarified that Malacañang has no plan of picking a fight with the SC. "Hindi kami nakikipag-away sa Korte Suprema… Ang amin lamang pong sinasabi is that ang--hindi na nga dapat iungkat ang judiciary budget dahil tapos na ‘yun eh So it was suspect for us to think and we have a right to think so that it is a diversionary measure," he said. Surprised In a press statement issued Friday, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad said he was surprised over the strong words of Corona on the issue revolving around the unfilled items in government. "It is not out of lack of respect for the Judiciary and the Constitutional and Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG), nor is it an insidious attempt to undermine their independence, that this budget reform measure is being proposed. "On the contrary, it is out of the government’s commitment to pursue transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, including its concern over the repeated failure of agencies of government to fill up items that they had proposed for funding by Congress," Abad said. He said as a demonstration of the administration’s belief that the principles of transparency and accountability and fiscal autonomy are not mutually exclusive, it has acceded to a proposal from both the House and Senate to restore the funds. He said a special provision has been adopted qualifying the use of the funds. These are: