Inequity at PCIC

A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) by Jose C.
Sison |Updated April 14, 2003 - 12:00am

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.