Attrition Law upheld by SC

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Attrition Act of 2005, but has junked a provision creating a joint congressional oversight committee which it said was given too much power. In a 41-page decision penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, the high court en banc said "Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer, may not pass upon [statutes’] legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution." All magistrates concurred. The Attrition Law provides for a system of rewards for revenue agencies, which exceed collection targets, and sanctions for those who miss goals by 7.5%. Rewards can come in kind or in monetary form, while sanctions include transfers or dismissal from service. The Abakada Guro Partylist, acting as taxpayers, had complained that the law would "transform the officials and employees of the [Bureau of Internal Revenue] and the [Bureau of Customs] into mercenaries and bounty hunters." Section 12, which created the committee to approve the law’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR), violates the doctrine of separation of powers, the complainants charged. This point has been rendered moot due to the fact that the IRR was already approved last May 22, 2006. The Supreme Court, however, noted this would not stop it from assessing the issue of legislative veto or supervision. This will also consequently affect laws and future laws that will create oversight committees with such powers, it added. Congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se, it said, as the legislative branch has the duty to check and balance the democratic system. But legislative veto, or in this case the approval of the law’s IRR, "radically changes the design or structure of the Constitution’s diagram of power as it entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing, applying or implementing its own laws," it said. The law should already be complete when it leaves the hands of lawmakers. The long legislative process is proof of this, it said. Thereafter, implementation or how it will be executed already belongs to the executive branch through its administrative agencies. Also, "in exercising discretion to approve or disapprove the IRR based on a determination of whether or not they conformed with the provisions of the [Attrition Law], Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself, a power exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution." In a separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga said the high court ruling was of momentous consequence considering the many laws that are also worded as such. "The invalidation of legislative vetoes will send a definite signal to Congress that its current understanding of the extent of legislative powers is awry," he said. The main opinion, however, clarified that the high court would not invalidate "wholesale" other laws containing such "but will do so at the proper time when an appropriate case assailing those provisions is brought before us." Quezon Rep. Danilo E. Suarez, the law’s author and chairman of the oversight panel, said "the committee did not exist. After approving the IRR, I immediately passed it on to the Senate, we only discussed it unofficially." But he added that if a controversy comes up in the future, Congress can still call for investigations. "Congress itself is mandated to look at how the Executive implements the law," he added. He also noted there is still the House’s Revenue Performance Evaluation Board that will assess if the administrative agencies are diligently doing their jobs. "I will immediately tell them of this [high court decision] ... As it is, [the whole] is good enough for me," he said. The Supreme Court determined as baseless fears that the law is unconstitutional. It said the complaint was filed when there was still no judicial controversy or proof that there would be adverse effects. "Public service is its own reward ... A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public accountability," it said. On the claim the law would turn government employees into bounty hunters, the high court said legislators established safeguards in case the rewards are claimed via irregular means. On the issue that the rewards are given to only a few and therefore violative of the guarantee of equal protection, it said "the equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary." On the issue that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President, the high court said determination of such does not rest solely on the country’s chief executive since it has to be assessed by the Development and Budget Coordinating Counsel. There is also a limit to identifying the conditions under which the employees would be sacked because of poor results, the court said. "[The law] lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of collection. This standard is analogous to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties...," it said. - BusinessWorld