DISCOURSE ON INCREASE IN BENEFITS

Point to consider, kailan ang full implementation ng provisions ng GOCC Act? Di pa nga malinaw kung nabuo na composition ng GCG. Linawin natin na mag conduct pa yan ng study regarding sa benefits ng mga covered GOCCs. Ang cassification in fact ay 5, namely: (1) Developmental/Social Corporations; (2) Proprietary Commercial Corporations; (3) Government Financial, Investment and Trust Institutions; (4) Corporations with Regulatory Functions; and (5) Others as may be classified by the GCG.

Given this condition, malamang na taon ang palampasin bago matapos ang mga pag aaral na ito. In the meantime, wala muna increase sa mga benefits natin kung mag concur tayo na di pwede magkaroon ng increase. Absolute ba na di pwede magkaroon ng increase? Kung hindi nga pwede, bakit pala tayo nabigyan ng interim increase last year na inapprove ni presidente sometime in July 2011 considering na nag take effect ang GOCC Act July 1, 2011?

Baka pala pwede magrequest ng uincrease in the interim period! Palagay nyo?

Blitz has a point, the IPP was signed/approved by Pnoy on July 4, 2011 - after the effectivity of the GOCC Act of 2011.

For the sake of argument, I am raising the following points in Q&A form as a reaction to the opinion and query of BLITZ on the issue of IPP, to wit:

1. What is the legal requirement prior to approval of increase in salaries and benefits?
Joint Resolution No. 4 of Congress requires for a recommendation from DBM and subsequent Executive Order came out requiring for recommendation of TFCC.

2. Who recommended the IPP for LANDBANK?
It was the TFCC which recommended for an interim increase for LANDBANK on May 2011. As elucidated by Director Diaz, the TFCC recognized the fact that LANDBANK was left out in the salary increases thus the need for the interim increase.

3. Why was the IPP approved after the effectivity of the GOCC Act?
It is Presidential Prerogative or Executive Power of the President who would ever legally question such act of approval. Significantly there was substantial compliance with the legal requirement on recommendation prior to approval thus Pres. Aquino signed the IPP and above all there was Madam Ballsy Aquino who helped the LANDBANKERS.

4. What is the legal requirement under the GOCC Act for increase in salaries and benefits?
The GOCC Act requires for the recommendation of the GCG prior to approval of the President.

Given this legal requirement which affects not only LANDBANK but all other GOCCs as well, personally I dont see any way out at all. However, I am posing this challenge to our legal expert Atty. Semaj because impliedly, although lacking in explanation, he concurred with the point raised by BLITZ on the signing by PNoy dated July 4, 2011 after the effectivity of the GOCC Act.

There is no harm in trying to request for an increase during the interim period. BLITZ may have a point because there is already a precedence. The IPP which was signed by the President on July 4, 2011 at the time the GOCC Act is already in effect is the clear proof. There must be legal basis in approving the IPP.

On the statement that:

Quote :

It is Presidential Prerogative or Executive Power of the President who would ever legally question such act of approval

Admittedly, the President has vast authority because of the Residual Powers ordained in EO 297 (Administrative Code of 1987) which states that "unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above, or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law".

In other words, while the President has a plenty of powers, he may not unilaterally impose his will by breaking laws because his powers have limitations, and the fundamental law of the land is clear on this, that the President shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987 Phil. Constitution). Therefore, there is no Presidential prerogative to speak of if there are laws enacted which should be followed by everyone.

Thank you Atty. Semaj for your legal opinion!

As i have repeatedly commented in this website and I stand firm with my statement that Pres. Aquino would not approve increases in salary and benefits unless recommended by a body legally authorized to do so. Under prevailing law more particularly the GOCC Act, only the GCG could make such recommendation for any increase in salary and benefits.

Do you think our LANDBANK Board would make recommendation directly to Pres. Aquino for approval of increase in our benefits? I dont think so considering the fact that the Chairman of LANDBANK Board is Finance Secretary Purisima who is also an ex-oficio member of the GCG.

I say there was an exercise of Presidential Prerogative in the signing of the IPP because Blitz concurred by Atty. Semaj raised the issue on the date of its approval which was July 4, 2012 during this time the GOCC Act was already in effect. Strictly and technically speaking, the President could have refused signing it since the recommendatory body was supposed to be the GCG however in our instance it was the TFCC. So exercising his Presidential Prerogative coupled with irresistible influence from a presidential sister, Pres. Aquino opted to sign the IPP.

If indeed the argument raised is true, that the sole basis of Pnoy's signing the IPP at the time the GOCC Act is already effective is his prerogative as a president of the republic, then he is opening himself to future legal problems because of abuse of discretion which may be brought to court on certiorari. It is even worse if the basis is the quoted "irresistible influence" of the sister. God forbids if this is really how the country is being managed now- merely on pure prerogative even if it contravenes with the laws, or through the influence of kins or shooting buddies!. Remember that the constitution mandates or directs the President that he shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. If he breaks this, then he will surely be a subject of impeachment or other legal processes in the future due to his own making.

Bottomline, can we not clarify with DBM if we are entitled to the increase on ACA/PERA? Ito lang naman ang main issue sa subject na increase on benefits!

With all due respect to you honorable Atty Semaj, I beg to STRONGLY disagree and I am rebutting your argument that as President of the Republic-Pres. Noy is opening himself to future legal problem because of abuse of discretion for signing the IPP on the following grounds:

1. Certiorari would not prosper due to Separation of Powers - we both know this so called thing "separation of powers" between the 3 branches of the Government- the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Departments. Assailing the act of the President in the exercise of his Executive function is an encroachment on the part of Judiciary. We learned this in law school.

2. LandBank belongs to the Executive Branch of the Government
Our ultimate Boss is the President of the Republic of the Philippines. It is within his power to approve the recommendation of the body/agency authorized by law to do such. It is never an abuse of discretion for a top executive of the government to sign/approve increase in salary as it is within his Constitutional mandate to do so being the head of the Executive Department.

3. Signing the IPP of LANDBANK is not in contravention of any law. As there is and never was any law proscribing the President to perform such act.

4. It is a sad fact as it may but our political system since time immemorial is accentuated and made exciting by close political allies, political dynasties, influences, etc. I need not dwell too much on the obvious.

I rest my arguments honorable Atty!

@ Ms Sonia: I did not say that he (Pnoy) committed abuse of discretion, it was qualified. What I have said is that there must be a legal basis of PNoy in signing the IPP when the GOCC Act is already effective because the law requires a procedure that must be followed before any increase will be made which is through the GCG and not TFCC as pointed out.

On the other points, the doctrine of separation of powers may have been misconstrued. In a democratic and republican state like the Phil., the powers of the national govt are exercised in main by three branches — the executive branch headed by the President, the legislative branch composed of Congress and the judicial branch with the Supreme Court occupying the highest tier of the judiciary. It is elementary that each of these branches of the govt has their own mandated functions - the legislative enact laws, the judiciary interpret laws, and the executive execute the laws. One branch may not therefore legally intrude on the domain of another.

If there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any of these branches, there is always a remedy in the course of law, one is Certiorari. Take the case of the very 1st executive order of Pnoy creating the Truth Commission, everybody knows what happened to this EO. It was ruled as unconstitutional. Even the GOCC Act which is a creation of the legislature is being challenged for its unconstitutionality. It is not correct therefore to say that "assailing the act of the President in the exercise of his Executive function is an encroachment on the part of Judiciary" if he oversteps his authority because laws or rules provide for controls and punishments for abuses. By way of illustration, If the president on his own sets salary increases, this act is undeniable a grave abuse of discretion because it is the legislature which has the power to set salary increases.

I hope to have clarified the matter.

semaj501 wrote:

If indeed the argument raised is true, that the sole basis of Pnoy's signing the IPP at the time the GOCC Act is already effective is his prerogative as a president of the republic, then he is opening himself to future legal problems because of abuse of discretion which may be brought to court on certiorari. It is even worse if the basis is the quoted "irresistible influence" of the sister. God forbids if this is really how the country is being managed now- merely on pure prerogative even if it contravenes with the laws, or through the influence of kins or shooting buddies!. Remember that the constitution mandates or directs the President that he shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. If he breaks this, then he will surely be a subject of impeachment or other legal processes in the future due to his own making.

Atty Semaj501: The bone of contention actually is the approval date of the IPP-July 4, 2011 which Blitz raised as an issue impliedly concurred by you. Why was this highlighted? Definitely there must be a cogent reason for raising this as an issue considering the fact that the act of signing was done during the effectivity of the GOCC Act.