This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Second: fiscal autonomy, which means that the office "may not be obstructed from [its] freedom to use or dispose of [its] funds for purposes germane to [its] functions;[168] hence, its budget cannot be strategically decreased by officials of the political branches of government so as to impair said functions; and | |||||
|
2015-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| We must, however, differentiate the guidelines for the grant of allowances and benefits to officials and employees of members of the Constitutional and Fiscal Autonomy Group. The judiciary, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman are granted fiscal autonomy by the Constitution.[105] The fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Constitutional and Fiscal Autonomy Group is an aspect of the members' independence guaranteed by the Constitution.[106] Their independence is a necessary component for their existence and survival in our form of government. | |||||
|
2015-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| As this court held in Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,[109] "real fiscal autonomy covers the grant to the Judiciary of the authority to use and dispose of its funds and properties at will, free from any outside control or interference."[110] This includes the judgment to use its funds to provide additional allowances and benefits to its officials and employees deemed to be necessary and relevant in the performance of their functions in the office. Due to the nature of the functions of the Constitutional and Fiscal Autonomy Group and the constitutional grant of fiscal autonomy, an issuance by the Department of Budget and Management or any other agency of the government is not necessary to exclude an allowance or benefit from the standardized salary. | |||||