NO MIP 1 THIS 1ST QCN 2013

The new set of LBPEA NEB had a courtesy call with Pres/CEO Gilda E. Pico last Tuesday-January 8 at 11:45AM in her office at the 33rd floor LandBank Plaza. One of the issues raised was the implementation of MIP1. According to Mam Pico, the management and LBPEA have the same stand that is for the implementation of this MIP 1. However, a clearance has to be obtained from the GCG for the release of this benefit which was done already by the management through an email message sent to GCG last Friday-January 4. So our management is awaiting for the reply of the GCG.

Mam Pico further explained that there is a necessity for this clearance because a new COA Policy was recently passed and applied in the case of National Livelihood Development Corp wherein COA disallowance of benefits amounting to P3M granted to the employees was charged to the President and Board of Directors who approved the release. She said that in the case of LandBank our MIP benefit amounts to almost P100M. So the management is cautious in releasing our benefits to avoid the harsh sanction contained in the COA Policy.

Thus WE HAVE NO MIP1 TO EXPECT THIS 1ST QUINCENA OF 2013

The NEB prepared its 2nd resolution expressing its firm stand on the implementation of the MIP 1 as it is part of our vested rights having been granted for several years already. A copy of this resolution was submitted to the management today.

welcome back madam, akala ko iniwan mo na kami

salamat naman. andito pa pala si mam sonia...

mam, is there a document stating the implementation of step increase? Isn't this regular benefits that we already have? if this would not be implemented can't this be considered as non-diminution of benefits?

any legality on this matter??

We had a meeting with EVP Junet Climaco wherein he mentioned that they will be presenting to the GCG the approval of Pres. GMA on our step increment together with the approval of Pres. Noy on our IPP which included also this step increment.

Actually we mentioned also to Mam Pico this non-diminution of benefits but then she told us that the stand of GCG during their forum wherein this specific issue was raised is that non-diminution covers only salary and not the benefits. She said GCG is composed of lawyers and they cannot go against the GCG otherwise they would be having a hard time requesting for approval of our other benefits.

This issue on non-diminution of benefits should be fought by the KAMAGFI as a collective representative of the different GFIs. Our focus at present is more on external alliance because of the GCG which has so much power over our economic benefits.

The union should give preferential attention to this issue. The case may really be considered as a violation of the the principle of "non-diminution of benefits".

If we are to agree to the opinion that non-diminution covers only salaries, why then that LBP continuously grant the other benefits that we were receiving prior to the effectivity of the GOCC Act such as the Grocery Allowance, 14th month pay, among others. Why single out this "Step Increment"? what makes it different from the rest of the other benefits that we are receiving?

In the past, it is repeatedly said that we could not ask for increases on the rates or amounts of economic benefits because of prevailing rules. We understand this but to cut the granting of an existing one could hardly be deciphered. Di ba sinabi na "institutionalized" na ang step increment? Just asking anyway!

Kakalito talaga.Iyong performance bonus may memo ng GCG para ibigay pero hindi binigay.Ngayon naman hihingi daw para ibigay.Naku naman nakakaloki.

Ms. Sonia, pwede paki post dito ang sinasabing COA Policy na basis ng disallowance ng benefits ng mga empleyado ng National Livelihood Development Corp?

Sir BLITZ: Sinabi po iyon ni Mam Pico sa amin about this COA Policy that even the management intends to question this in court alangan naman po na hingin pa namin sa kanya ang policy na ito siguro may COA naman kayo dyan paki tanong na lg BLITZ. Hwag mo naman dagdagan trabaho ko na maging researcher pa.

BLITZ: I hope this article from the PhilStar will in a way satisfy a little your curiosity about the COA Policy.



COA: NLDC execs got 'too much' in bonuses for 2010
By Michael Punongbayan | Updated December 10, 2011 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines - Officials and employees of the National Livelihood Development Corp. (NLDC) received too much in productivity enhancement incentive (PEI) bonuses last year, the Commission on Audit (COA) said.

State auditors said the P760,000 in cash gifts to executives and personnel of the state-owned firm violated Administrative Order 3 issued by President Aquino in November 2010.

They noted that despite receiving additional yearend benefits in excess of those authorized by the law, NLDC officials and employees got more last year.

Administrative Order 3 states that in order to be granted the PEI, employees should not have received any additional yearend benefit in 2010 over and above the Christmas bonuses authorized under Republic Act 6686.

Records show that the NLDC board of trustees did not submit documents to the COA to show that the grant of the additional personnel benefits was backed by board resolutions. The COA said that the NLDC president, in a June 15, 2010 letter, asked then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo “for the confirmation of the NLDC Personnel Benefit Package that includes personnel benefit increases in anniversary cash gift, Christmas gift package and medical assistance, which was signed as ‘confirmed’ by then President Arroyo.”

State auditors stressed that the agency’s officers and employees – including contractual personnel – are clearly no longer allowed to receive the PEI considering that they have already received several other personnel benefits aside from the 13th month pay and cash gift.

The NLDC is a government-owned and controlled corporation mandated to “undertake the promotion, generation and development of livelihood and community-based enterprises primarily in agri-business, including those in the agrarian reform communities that will cater to the low-income bracket,” according to the COA.

Salamat Ms. Sonia. Masyado na atang play safe ang LBP. Biruin mo, for the past 10 years or so, ibinibigay na yang step increment na yan. Last year, ibinigay din na walang condition o pinagdaanang proseso kagaya ngayon. Kung may tama ito, dapat nakita na sana ng mga auditors natin nung previous years pa!

Ang fear lang, baka pati mga iba nating benefits kagaya ng Anniversary Bonus, Profit Sharing, etc., hingan din ng clearance bago ibigay,. Remember, first benefit ito para sa year 2013 apart sa salary natin kaya may possibility na precedence na ito...

Hindi tinamaan last year 2012 ang MIP natin because the PBB only came out on the last Quarter of 2012 while our MIPs were released on the 1st Quarter of the year.

Ang profit sharing daw po Sir Blitz ang nanganganib kasi part po ito ng MIP natin na performance based din katulad ng PBB pero ang anniversary bonus walang problema po. Ang dilemma nga kung ang PBB would replace ang buong MIP or only the MIP2 so para sigurado na walang disallowance kailangan ng clearance sa GCG itong MIP natin. Ang ibang benefits natin walang problema kasi ang basehan hindi naman performance like the anniversary bonus and the grocery/xmas gift package.

Haist atleast malinaw na. Dun sa page sa fb nakaka-discourage yung nakapost eh. Expect for the worst daw...

Speaking of mip.. ms sonia tanong ko lng po kung anu pede mging action kung ang 1 employee n nbigyan ng mip last year e hindi pla dpat nbigyan s kdahilanang mbaba tlaga ang grade per ptwar criteria at ngkamali lng s final total?,, and ung final total ang naipasa for ranking?

aila wrote:

Speaking of mip.. ms sonia tanong ko lng po kung anu pede mging action kung ang 1 employee n nbigyan ng mip last year e hindi pla dpat nbigyan s kdahilanang mbaba tlaga ang grade per ptwar criteria at ngkamali lng s final total?,, and ung final total ang naipasa for ranking?

The error or procedural lapse is attributable to the supervisor in the first place it was him who did the rating and ranking of employees he should have double checked the computation prior to submission of the ranking.

You may bring this matter to the Personnel Administration Department however, I doubt it if the employees would be made to refund because it was not his fault but that of his supervisor.

Records show that the NLDC board of trustees did not submit documents to the COA to show that the grant of the additional personnel benefits was backed by board resolutions. The COA said that the NLDC president, in a June 15, 2010 letter, asked then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo “for the confirmation of the NLDC Personnel Benefit Package that includes personnel benefit increases in anniversary cash gift, Christmas gift package and medical assistance, which was signed as ‘confirmed’ by then President Arroyo.”

kung eto ang reason ng COA disallowance sa NLDC e bakit tayo madisallow din e yung MIPs natin ay supported by a Board Resolution

Ang MIP natin kasi isang component lang ang ibig sabihin po ang 1, 2, and 3 which is tatlong benefits dapat ay iisa po ang title nito MIP lg. As we all know may pinalabas ang Malacanang na PBB so ang confusion lies on what is being replaced by this PBB whether the whole MIP or only MIP2. So to be sure na tama ang interpretation ng management sa PBB minabuti nila na humingi ng clearance sa GCG for the release of this MIP1 kasi ang PBB po may sanctions yan if ever may violation.

More than P1OO Million po ang sasagutin ng management natin especially ng LandBank Board at President kung hindi tama ang interpretation sa batas na ito ang magbabayad po hindi ang empleyado kundi ang management at board na nag approve ng release. This was the statement of our Pres/CEO Gilda E. Pico during our courtesy call last Tuesday, January 7.

Gov’t clerks ordered to refund bonuses
2:18 am | Friday, January 11th, 2013

If a senator is free to do what he wishes with a P1.6-million
bonus from the Senate’s savings, a clerk at the Department of
Agriculture will be asked to refund any bonus from his agency’s savings.

In the National Housing Authority and other state corporations,
employees are grumbling that they are being asked to return bonuses they
had received in the past. They say those retiring are facing the
prospects of deductions from their retirement pay if they do not
reimburse the bonuses—in some cases up to P200,000 accumulated through
the years.

That is the inequity created by the constitutional provision
granting fiscal autonomy to certain bodies but not all of the
bureaucracy, former National Treasurer Leonor Briones said Thursday.

“In government itself, you don’t have uniformity and equality,” she said by phone.

The Constitution authorizes the President, Senate President,
House Speaker, Chief Justice or heads of constitutional commissions to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their office from
savings.

Since this is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, the
transfer of funds has been “legitimized” by many administrations,
although the general principle is that savings would revert to general
funds or the treasury, Briones explained.

Legit but not equitable

But what is legitimate may not necessarily be equitable from the point of view of public interest, she said.

While government agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy such as the
Senate or House could give away fat bonuses to their employees, regular
agencies like the departments are allowed by law to grant a maximum
P10,000 bonus, Briones said.

“It’s not certainly equitable. If you’re a policeman, a clerk at
DAR (Department of Agrarian Reform) or a bureau director at DA
(Department of Agriculture) you’re entitled to P10,000,” she said. “From
the point of view of legitimacy, it’s legitimate. But from the point of
view of public interest, it may not necessarily be equitable.”

This practice has only bred envy among other government personnel, she added.

And unlike agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy, regular ones could
not source bonuses from savings because they’re covered by the general
rule that savings revert to the treasury, otherwise, the latter’s
personnel would be asked to refund bonuses taken from savings, Briones
said.

“So you have a case of a president of SUC (state university and
college) who has to refund, and a senator who doesn’t have to refund,”
she said.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has confirmed granting P1.6
million in additional maintenance, operations and other expenses (MOOE)
to each of 18 senators last Christmas. Four other senators received
P250,000 each.

Part of the funds came from the unspent
funds allotted for the 24th seat vacated by President Aquino when he
assumed power in June 2010 and was converted into MOOE.

Sought for comment, Budget Secretary
Florencio Abad said there was a need to clarify whether the MOOE was a
bonus or part of the usual overhead expenses.

Otherwise, Enrile has full discretion “to
realign funds from savings,” Abad said. In the end, the lawmakers are
subject to a review of the Commission on Audit (COA), the secretary
said.

“The matter of wisdom and prudence in the
use of public funds should be addressed to the Senate in its exercise of
its autonomy in the disbursement of funds,” he said. “Their autonomy is
not absolute as COA in the end will have to audit their use of funds.”

‘It’s our money’

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte also admitted
giving away P500,000 in MOOE to each of the 283 lawmakers during the
holidays. Some of the recipients considered it a bonus.

“It’s our money. Is that practice
acceptable? It’s generally known and accepted, but not necessarily
considered as ethical,” Briones said.

“The issue of discretion on the part of
officials can be used responsibly to perpetuate power, to take care of
kingdoms or your part of bureaucracy, but it’s not necessarily fair to
the rest of bureaucracy.”

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago told the
Philippine Daily Inquirer by phone Thursday that she had asked in a
letter to COA Chairperson Grace Pulido-Tan for a “study, report and
recommendation” that would once and for all define the constitutional
words “savings” and “public purposes.”

Tan said Thursday in an interview that
Enrile’s action was legal and authorized under the general
appropriations act. “They were the ones who crafted this. We can’t play
God. We can’t pretend to do better than them. They did not specify the
parameters, so whatever inequity or abuse, she (Santiago) will have to
take this up with the competent authority, which is the Senate
President,” the COA chief said.

Later in the day, Tan issued a statement
assuring the public that the COA was looking into the reported
realignment of the Senate’s savings into the additional budget for the
MOOE.

“Every action we take should be from the standpoint of the law. In due course, we will come up with a report,” she added.

“COA can only be as effective for as long
as the people will continue to be vigilant and involved. At the end of
the day, the sense of proportion on whether funds were used excessively
is something only the constituents of the respective legislators can
determine,” Tan said.

Be consistent



“He or she who is questioning and calling
what (Enrile) did unconscionable and unconstitutional should be
consistent and should not have accepted the P600,000 given last
November,” Sen. Panfilo Lacson said Thursday, referring to the first
tranche of MOOE. “One cannot preach righteousness after committing the
very same unconscionable act yesterday.”

Sen. Gregorio Honasan said, “When you make a
comment like that and refuse to be identified, why not join the Witness
Protection Program.” With reports from Cathy C. Yamsuan and Cynthia D. Balana


--- grabe ang news ngaun, thats the reason why the management is very cautious on giving us our benefits even if it was institutionalized already... Lets hope and pray that a light will shine on our countries leaders specially with our President Noy. As he said to our planning conference, "Landbank brings very clear sparkling water in a polluted landscape. "



P.U.S.H.

pray until something happen.

Ang isang problema kasi sa atin yung mga MIP 1, 2, 3 na yan ay walang guidelines na nacircularize kaya di natin alam kung ano ba talaga ang saklaw ng mga MIPs na ito. In fact, sa pagkakaalam ko, sinubukan namin nun na humingi ng kopya sa PAD pero di nabigyan ng pansin, parang sa kanila "confidential" ata ang nature. Yung nakuha ng LBPEA exerpts lang ng "alleged guideline". Isa rin ito sa mga reasons kung bakit humingi na sila ng clearance ngayon dahill sa gocc Act.

im a newly hired in landbank... so i pray that mip 1 will be granted.... haisssttt

BLITZ wrote:

Ang isang problema kasi sa atin yung mga MIP 1, 2, 3 na yan ay walang guidelines na nacircularize kaya di natin alam kung ano ba talaga ang saklaw ng mga MIPs na ito. In fact, sa pagkakaalam ko, sinubukan namin nun na humingi ng kopya sa PAD pero di nabigyan ng pansin, parang sa kanila "confidential" ata ang nature. Yung nakuha ng LBPEA exerpts lang ng "alleged guideline". Isa rin ito sa mga reasons kung bakit humingi na sila ng clearance ngayon dahill sa gocc Act.

So far tama nga naman si BLITZ, may mga querries pa kami since March 2012 and a follow up letter on August 2012 but still wala pa rin reply ang PAD, yan ba nag tinatawag na CIVIL SERVANT....paging NEB ano ba action niyo dito.....

pababayan na lang ba na ganito ang trato nila sa atin na mga rank and file....

I am calling on Director Rhoel Vaflor of Northern Luzon to act on the concerns of Sir Blackman and BLITZ...makibaka hwag matakot nasa likod mo kami..agapa kuyang!


Actually it was brought out during our courtesy call with EVP Junet Climaco-Corporate Services Sector Head the issue on admonition wherein discussions regarding the harshness of the penalty and that for the management to revisit the policy. He said that they would look into this together with the Admin Legal Head and HRMG Head. EVP Climaco is also the chairman of the Accountability and Assessment Committee (AAC).

ganito na lang mga kasama, kung tanggalin nila yang mga MIP 1,2 & 3 na yan, dapat meron silang ipalit. Itaas nila ang mga allowance natin gaya ng walang kamatayan na issue ng PERA/ACA, tayo ang pinakulelat sa allowance na yan compare sa ibang GOCC gaya ng PHIC,HDMF,SSS & GSIS. Dagdagan/taasan din ang ating existing allowance, lagyan ng birthday /sugar o opthalmology allowance gaya ng ibang GOCC. Kawawa talaga ang mga pobreng Landbankers.. tsktsktsk.

Ang main issue Madam Sonia ay hindi yung effect ng "admonition" sa mga empleyado kundi kung bakit wala tayong hawak na guidelines na sumasaklaw sa mga MIPs na ito. Naniniwala ba tayo na confidential ang nature ng mga bagay na ito? Kasi kung nasa atin ang kopya ng policies re MIPs, at least mapag aralan at maintindihan po natin ang nilalaman. Akala ko ba "transparency at accountability" ang polisiya ng gobyerno natin...

Sir Blitz, alam yan ng representative ninyo si Director Rhoel Vaflor na sumulat si Pres. Allan sa management requesting for copy of the policy kasi ipinakita sa amin ang memo noong 1st LBPEA NEB Meeting. Wala pa rin sagot ang management sa letter depende na sa LBPEA President kung ano ang next move nya bilang ulo ng asosasyon.

Dapat sana ang aksyon ng LBPEA ay concerted as a collegial body at di individual efforts madam para mas malakas ang dating at para di ma single out ang sinuman sa inyo na officers ng union. Hindi po kami naniniwal na wala na tayong ibang recourse pag di sinasagot ang letter request ninyo.

if indeed, the lbpea neb have brought the matter to madam gep, what is our next move? did we follow up these to proper authorities? calling the attention of our newly elected president...any updates, please!

good day Mam Sonia..any update if there is still the possibility of the MIP 1 to be given soon? what about our 1st tranche - profit sharing every February..will it sill be given?

alut5724 wrote:

good day Mam Sonia..any update if there is still the possibility of the MIP 1 to be given soon? what about our 1st tranche - profit sharing every February..will it sill be given?

MIP1 how soon? As soon as GCG would give clearance but then til now wala pa...about profit sharing mukhang hindi rin maibigay this February pag walang clearance ng GCG

para na rin nagkatotoo yon END OF THE WORLD

thanks for the update Mam Sonia...in other words pala, let us not hope for the best to come but instead expect the worst to happen this year...what a pitiful state for Land Bank employees most especially the rank and file, if ever...

alut5724 wrote:

thanks for the update Mam Sonia...in other words pala, let us not hope for the best to come but instead expect the worst to happen this year...what a pitiful state for Land Bank employees most especially the rank and file, if ever...

Mukhang ganoon nga sya Mam Alut let us prepare for the worst but sana hindi naman sa buong taon..may unconfirmed info kasi na lumalabas baka by last quarter of the year daw ma implement na ang rationalization ng salary natin and hopefully maging pabor ito sa atin.

kidding aside Mam Sonia, if by last quarter pa ang good news, di kaya late na?..."aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo"?...imagine kung lahat ng usual natin na natatanggap ay di na ibibigay very painful reality yan for sure...

Tama ka Mam Alut late nga pero may kasabihan din na better late than never hehe..GCG kasi ang powerful ngayon sila ang may say sa rationalization of salary..infact mula ng nag take effect ang GOCC Act walang GOCC/GFIs na binigyan ng salary increase fortunate nga tayo na naibigay ang interim increase natin bago sila umupo otherwise talagang sobrang kawawa po tayo

...and we are very much grateful to you and the LBPEA 2008-2012 for that very very big blessing Mam Sonia...sana same "miracle" will happen during the new LBPEA 2013-2016...

did we ever have communication with other gocc and gfi's about their stand re: gcg matter? can we initiate or take the first step so that all gocc and gfi can meet and put things in their proper prospective?

MIP 1 should not be classified to be part of the PBB/PBI. Salaries are typically adjusted annually. These increases in pay are colloquially referred to as cost-of-living adjustments or cost-of-living increases because of their similarity to increases tied to externally-determined indexes.

white fox wrote:

did we ever have communication with other gocc and gfi's about their stand re: gcg matter? can we initiate or take the first step so that all gocc and gfi can meet and put things in their proper prospective?

KAMAGFI has its own set of officers just like our union. This is composed of employees association of LANDBANK, PDIC, SSS, GSIS, DBP etc. President or represenatives of the different unions gather to discuss employement related matters. Our representative before to KAMAGFI was VP Nanet Lati and she was really active in the various activities of KAMAGFI and this is the venue where Ms. Nanet got info about benefits of other agencies. Our representative at this time is VP Marlon Faraon I hope he would be as active as Nanet.

KAMAGFI is so much aware of what is going on with the GCG that we dont need to initiate or take the first step for a meeting about GCG matter. What LBPEA is doing at present is for our Representative to attend the meetings of KAMAGFI so that we will be aware or will be informed of what the other agencies similarly situated with us are doing.

...Our representative before to KAMAGFI was VP Nanet
Lati and she was really active in the various activities of KAMAGFI and
this is the venue where Ms. Nanet got info about benefits of other
agencies. Our representative at this time is VP Marlon Faraon I hope he
would be as active as Nanet...

well said madam and i now fully understand were we stand for. thanks for the information.

is mr faraon an active user of this site? i hope he is, so he can give details as to when will be the next meeting of KAMAGFI and give us updates.
please be our voice and representative just like ms. nanet as madam sonia said.

specialist wrote...
MIP 1 should not be classified to be part of the PBB/PBI. Salaries
are typically adjusted annually. These increases in pay are
colloquially referred to as cost-of-living adjustments or cost-of-living
increases because of their similarity to increases tied to
externally-determined indexes.

if this is considered not classified to be part of PBB/PBI and are to be adjusted
annually, therefore, this should be one of the agenda in our latest CNA. please correct me if i am wrong and if my memory still remember. one step increase in our salary is never mentioned. please refresh my memory. tnx