Let there be fairness for its sake

Here comes another special good news for the present members of the Bench upon their retirement from service. Republic Act 9946 has just been signed by the President increasing the judges’ retirement pensions.

Before this new law, the retired members of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and other courts with equivalent ranks of the CA had already enjoyed salary raises and allowances granted to the incumbents. In short, whatever compensation privileges granted to SC and CA sitting magistrates also included the already retired members, pursuant to R.A. 910 and pertinent special resolutions of the Supreme Court.

To stress further, all trial court judges – Regional Trial Courts, Metro Courts, City Courts, and Municipal Courts – whose members had already retired receive the same amount of pensions or annuities upon their retirement, but not raises taking effect after leaving the bench.

However, upon the “doubling” of pay of all courts denominated as “allowances” instead of “salaries”, the retiring judges then enjoyed the “doubled” rates of pensions, but the retired judges stayed put in their original pensions or annuities.

Frankly, one has not read the full text of R.A. 9946, but based on the news clipping describing its summary features, it appears that the raised pension benefits for all courts are prospective in application. Note its caption: “New law will increase retiring judges’ pensions”. Obviously, the already retired magistrates at the effectivity of RA 9946 can’t benefit from the increased pensions, the grant of survivorship benefit for the spouse, and of the dependent children. Members of the Bench covered by this law are the judges of all level courts, and those retiring after the effectivity of R.A. 9946.

Such feature radically differs from the retired government employees under the GSIS and the retired private workers under the SSS. In both GSIS and SSS retirement systems, the retirees enjoy at least the annual 10% granted to incumbent personnel as salary increase, plus the 13 month bonus of their monthly pensions. Such additional benefit inures regardless of when the already retired members had left employment.

Under R.A. 9946 which does not retroact to benefit the already retired judges, but prospective only when a judge retires after its effectivity, there appears some discrimination against the former. Hence, the wisdom of the legislature, the concept of justice of the judiciary, and the statesmanship of the executive who approved the law, are open to question.

It all means that the intendment of the law – and even of previous retirement and pension benefits – is unfairly and unjustly narrowed down only to the incumbents. But the State as parens patriae of the nation through its 3 branches and their agencies, is supposed to look after all sectors similarly situated as having served the State in the same capacity.

The basic law on the retired judges is fair enough – but not ensuing laws – since the aggregate retirement pay and the monthly annuity after 5 years lump sum is not limited to the basic salary. It includes the RATA, longevity allowance, and the PERA. It’s the grant of increased annuity or pension benefits that appears discriminatory against the retired trial court judges.

Lest the establishment, particularly the legislature and judiciary may look down on the already retired trial magistrates as not worth raised pensions, don’t further degrade their lot. There are those who live in dignity by dint of spartan lifestyle, simple investments and savings, and with material possessions, and observing wise husbandry of assets, plus incomes of their spouses… It’s just that it sounds so revolting that the discriminatory laws have been so crafted against the retirees as if they were inutile.

* * *

Email: [email protected]