Home 
No sooner did the Judiciary, Legislative and Executive Advisory and Consultative Council (Jelac) begin to function than concerns are being expressed about its wisdom if not about its constitutionality. Some have expressed the fear that it can compromise the independence of the judiciary in the regime of separation of powers. Should it really be a matter of serious concern?
Any discussion of the subject must begin with the nature of judicial power, which, as our Constitution puts it, “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Beyond this, the judiciary may not arrogate more, nor may it be given more.
In the 1987 Constitution there is a provision which says that the “Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.”
Against this background, what can be said about the Jelac?
Based on the memorandum of agreement creating the Jelac, it “shall serve as the forum and venue for the representatives of the three branches of government to undertake measures on matters affecting the primacy of the rule of law, to identify the problems and issues, to formulate solutions and to implement the same.” As worded, the functions seem to be closer to legislative and executive than to anything else.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan, whose brainchild Jelac is, is quoted as saying, “Firstly, the creation of the Jelac is not by law but by a memorandum of agreement. Hence, at any given time, any party to the agreement may send notice to the other parties if it desires to withdraw its participation from the council. The hands of the SC, therefore, are not tied to the Jelac should it deem it necessary to disengage because of legal or policy differences.”
Since government authority comes only from law and since Jelac, as Pangilinan admits, is not a creature of law, it has no legal authority. Why then should the Chief Justice lend the stature of his office to a body that has no legal authority?
Pangilinan adds that the Jelac was meant to be ad hoc in nature and that “it is meant to fast-track the much needed reforms in the administration of justice by way of budgetary and other forms of support.”
So there you have it! Fast-tracking the “much needed reforms through budgetary and other forms of support” is a legislative and executive function.
In so far as this is an admission that Congress and the executive have not done their job, I agree. But the only task of the Court should be to apprise the President and Congress of the needs of the judiciary through the annual report required by Article VIII, Section 16 of the Constitution. /Joaquin Bernas, Inquirer
