The Manila’s Finest Retirees Association, Inc. (MFRAI), composed mostly of policemen who retired prior to 1991 (when the INP was abolished), recently had petitioned Judge Juan Nabong of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 32 to issue a decision on the legality of a provision of Republic Act 6975 or the PNP Law which exempted the INP retirees from receiving the same pension pay of policemen in the PNP.
MFRAI president, retired police Col. Felicisimo Lazaro said that a court’s decision in their favor shall compel the lawmakers to enact remedial measures or amend the PNP Law.
Lazaro said there are now about 700 surviving policemen who retired under the INP and are "being neglected by the government in the adjustment of their pension benefits based on the prevailing scale of the base pay of their counterparts in the active military and police service."
Records showed that a police corporal (equivalent to the lowest rank up to Senior Police Officer 3 in the PNP) who retired in the INP only receives a monthly pension of P3,225, while his counterpart is presently receiving P11,310. A sergeant gets P4,340 while his counterpart Senior Police Officer 4 now receives P12,122; lieutenant, P4,750, while an inspector, P14,800; captain, P5,248, while a senior inspector, P15,976; major, P6,860 as against chief inspector, P16,976; Lt. Col., P6,760 while a superintendent, P16,610; colonel, PP9,755.83, senior superintendent, P17,300; and a Brig. General, P10,054.24, chief superintendent, P18,088.
Lazaro also cited an amendment in RA 6975, Section 85, which states that, "Provided no retiree of the defunct INP shall suffer any diminution in the basic retirement benefits due them in the rationalization of retirement system during the creation of the PNP."
The MFRAI also cited Napolcom Resolution No. 8 and the amended RA 6975 as a clear case of class legislation for having classified the police retirees into two categories; those who retired prior to 1991 (INP) and policemen who retired in 1991 onwards. "Clearly, one is discriminated against the other when both are similarly situated under the same circumstance," it argued.