Inequity at PCIC

Any public official or employee is called upon to exercise his power and perform his duties not only in a legal and just manner but also in an efficient and proper way. This is a basic precept in public service arising out of the principle of accountability of public officers who are called to serve with "utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency". The Constitution itself has set these high standards. Admittedly, they sound and look good – but only on paper. The spirit of these basic maxim continues to remain in the pages of our Charter and has not permeated the veins of most of our public servants, including officials of government corporations like the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC).

The PCIC is a government corporation created by a special charter engaged in the business of crop insurance.It is managed and run by a board with a president as its chief executive officer who are all supposed to be professionals.Its present president is Mr. Benito F. Estacio, Jr. who is the main official practically calling the shots and running the affairs of the corporation. As such, he must be aware that he is sitting on a potentially explosive problem which may blow up on his face not only because of inaction but more because he appears to be doing his job in disregard of the clear mandate of the law.

The law that Mr. Estacio openly refuses to carry out is Republic Act 6758, otherwise known as "An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position Classification System" which took effect way back on July 1, 1989. Under section 12 of said law as interpreted by the Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Philippine Ports Authority (PPA-another government corporation like PCIC) vs. COA, G.R. 100773, Oct. 16, 1992, allowances and additional compensations like cost of living allowance, amelioration allowance and equity allowance should be consolidated into the standardized salaries of incumbent government employees who were already receiving them as of July 1,1989. The legislative intent according to the Supreme Court is to protect incumbents who are receiving salaries and/or allowances over and above those authorized by RA 6758 to continue to receive the same even after said law took effect on July 1,1989.

As of July 1, 1989, as shown on their payslips, the employees of PCIC were receiving basic salaries and additional compensations consisting of 40 percent thereof as cost of living allowance, 10 percent thereof as amelioration allowance and the fixed amount of P 550 as equity allowance also for cost of living.

Pursuant to RA 6758,the PCIC standardized the salaries of its employees starting April 1990. But it did not integrate the allowances above mentioned into the standardized salaries. So from April 1990, the employees did not anymore receive the additional compensations they were receiving before July 1,1989, as shown in their pay slips. PCIC cited the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC-10) implementing RA 6758 which discontinued, without qualification, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of the basic salary.

DBM CCC-10 was however declared null and void by the Supreme Court for lack of the necessary publication (De Jesus vs. COA, G.R.109023, August 12, 1998) and because it negates the provision of RA 6758 on the non-diminution of pay of the incumbents as of July 1, 1989 (PITC vs. COA, G.R. 132593, June 25,1999 citing the earlier case of PPA vs. COA G.R. 100773, Oct.16, 1992). In its last ruling on August 5, 1999, the Supreme Court affirmed the absolute nullity of DBM CCC 10 because it cannot amend an act of Congress, R.A.6758(NTA vs. COA, G.R.11385).

Despite the clear and unequivocal rulings of the Supreme Court, Mr. Estacio kept stalling the payment. When the employees made a formal demand, he referred the matter to the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) for opinion. But even as the OGCC told him on January 27, 2003 to settle these claims for allowances and benefits, Mr. Estacio did not take any steps to do so. He even disregarded the OGCC opinion and denied outright the claim of the employees, most of whom had already reached retirement age waiting to be paid what is due them.

Fortunately for Mr. Estacio, Jr. and perhaps for the board members of PCIC who appear to be predominantly silent on this issue, the affected employees have so far kept their patience. But with such open refusal to implement the mandate of the law, these poor employees who are not getting any younger may eventually lose their patience and ascribe some impure motives for such unreasonable act or omission since they know fully well that PCIC is not cash-strapped to settle their claims. It is not far-fetched, therefore, that the Ombudsman may have to step in for the necessary investigation leading to both administrative and criminal charges in court.

I hope that Mr. Estacio,Jr. will finally see the light of reason and give the poor employees their just compensation.

E-mail: [email protected]