Include AFP, PNP retirees in government pay hike – lawmakers

MANILA, Philippines – The Senate and the House of Representatives have been urged to include retirees from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) in the proposed salary increase for the 1.5 million government personnel.

Reps. Romeo Acop of Antipolo City, Leopoldo Bataoil of Pangasinan, Gary Alejano and Francisco Ashley Acedillo of party-list group Magdalo and Samuel Pagdilao of Anti-Crime and Terrorism through Community Support and Involvement made the appeal yesterday through Resolution 2547.

Acop, Bataoil and Pagdilao are former PNP officers, while Alejano and Acedillo previously belonged to the AFP.

They stand to benefit from the increase when they are no longer lawmakers if retirees are included in the pay hike proposal.

They said the two chambers of Congress can still include retirees and veterans in the proposal since this is still pending final approval, though the House has already passed it.

“Their inclusion is a sign of appreciation and respect to them for risking their lives to protect the country,” they said.

“The omission of the retired military and uniformed personnel from the coverage of the proposed SSL (Salary Standardization Law) 2015 discredits the sacrifices made by our veterans and retirees who have spent almost half of their lives as guardians of peace and protectors of democracy,” the five former AFP and PNP officers said.

They noted that Section 11 of the proposed law suspends the indexation of retirees’ and veterans’ pension to the salaries of those in the active service pending the passage of a pension reform law establishing a sustainable and just pension system for former military and police personnel.

They said it is unfair that the suspension of the indexation of pension benefits for military and police retirees be based on the passage of a pension reform law, which has not yet been filed for the consideration of Congress.

They argued that such suspension undermines laws that entitle AFP and PNP retirees to the same privileges enjoyed by those in the active service.

“As representatives of the people, it is high time that we stand up in behalf of our veterans and retired military and uniformed personnel to show our utmost appreciation and respect to them for risking their lives to protect our country,” they said.

In presenting the proposed SSL 2015 to Congress, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) did not include AFP and PNP retirees in the planned salary adjustment, apparently because it would bloat the already huge amount of public funds the program would entail.

According to Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, the pay hike would cost taxpayers P226 billion over four years: P57.906 billion in 2016, P54.393 billion in 2017, P65.976 billion in 2018 and P47.544 billion in 2019.

However, Sen. Ralph Recto estimates that taxpayers would have to shell out twice as much for the increase.

Recto reckons that if the first-year cost is P58 billion, which is the amount included in the 2016 budget, then the minimum total appropriations needed over four years is P232 billion.

“The first-year cost is carried on the second, third and fourth years. That is why the minimum is P58 billion times four years or P232 billion, which already exceeds Secretary Abad’s total of P226 billion,” a member of the senator’s staff told The STAR.

“The second year cost is carried on the third and fourth years, and the third-year increment is carried on the fourth. If the 2017 amount involved is P54.4 billion, that means that the incremental cost for 2017, 2018 and 2019 is P163.2 billion,” the source said.

He said based on Abad’s figures, the total cost of the pay hike is P575 billion, excluding increased government contributions to the Government Service Insurance System, PhilHealth and Pag-ibig Fund.

The exclusion of AFP and PNP retirees also arose from concerns lawmakers have expressed during budget hearings about the fact that the amount of funds they are allocating for retired personnel is nearly equal to the appropriations for the salaries of those in the active service.

They said it is not fair that retirees, many of whom reportedly indulge in luxury and pass their time in golf courses, receive the same benefits as those in active duty.