Stubborn refusal to implement the law

Since the enactment of the Salary Standardization Law (RA 6758) on July 1, 1989, there is one controversy that continues to plague some government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) despite the numerous Supreme Court rulings interpreting Section 12 and 17 of said Act on the non-diminution of the salaries and fringe benefits of incumbent employees (PPA vs. COA G.R.10073, October 10,1992;PITC vs. COA, G.R.132593, June 25,1999; De Jesus vs. COA,G.R.109023, August 12,1998; NTA vs. COA 119385, Aug.5,1999; Cruz et al. vs. COA, G.R. 134740, Oct. 23, 2001).

The nagging controversy is in connection with the cost of living allowance (COLA), amelioration allowance (AA) and other forms of allowance being given to incumbent employees as of July 1, 1989, the effectivity of said law, but withheld thereafter because of the insistence of some GOCCs that they are already deemed integrated into the standardized salaries fixed by said law. These stubborn GOCCs continue to refuse payment of these allowances in utter disregard of the above cited Supreme Court rulings and of the opinion and advice of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) that they should be paid. Their reason? Well, the Supreme Court decisions are not applicable because those cases involve allowances other than COLA and AA etc. So, they remain intransigent to the extent of branding as incorrect, the very opinion of the OGCC which they solicited.

Concededly, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in its Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM CCC 10), issued on October 2, 1989, implementing RA 6758, has already made a determination that COLA, AA and other forms of allowances are deemed integrated into the standardized salaries and should no longer be paid effective November 1, 1989. But the Supreme Court, in the case of De Jesus vs. COA, supra, ruled on August 12, 1998, that DBM CCC 10 is invalid and unenforceable because of lack of publication. This being so, the withholding of those allowances from November 1, 1989 is illegal.

The stonewalling attitude of these stubborn GOCCs is therefore prejudicial not only to the employees but to the government as well. The cost of paying these benefits continus to pile up for as long as they are not settled. They should heed the call of their own Government Corporate Counsel "to act according to the clear dictates of justice, equity and fairness as embodied under the maxim praecepta sunt hec, honeste vivere, alterum non ladere suum cuique tribuere (the precepts of the law are these, live honestly, injure no one and give each one his due)".

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]