UP Staff, Professors Protest Non-payment of Back COLA

About 1,000 administrative staff and professors in different campuses of the University of the Philippines (UP) staged pickets from Nov. 21 to 25 to protest the UP administration’s refusal to pay unpaid cost-of-living allowance (COLA). The strikers, who are members of the All-UP Workers Alliance (AUPWA), have been demanding the release of their COLA since 2001.

BY BULATLAT

About 1,000 administrative staff and professors in different campuses of the University of the Philippines (UP) staged pickets from Nov. 21 to 25 to protest the UP administration’s refusal to pay their back cost-of-living allowance (COLA).

The strikers, who are members of the All-UP Workers Alliance (AUPWA), have been demanding the release of their COLA since 2001, Buboy Cabrera, one of their leaders, said in an interview.

The AUPWA is composed of the unions of the rank and file (All-UP Workers Union) and the faculty (All-UP Academic Employees Union). Cabrera, who works at the UP Press in the Diliman campus, is president of the All-UP Workers Union.

Along with other government workers, UP administrative staff and professors have been calling on the national government to give back the COLA that was integrated into their basic salaries in line with the implementation of the Salary Standardization Law in 1989. However, it was not until 1999 that the law’s implementing rules and regulations got published.

Government employees have struggled for the release of their back COLAs from 1989 to 1999. Cabrera said other state colleges and universities like the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) and the Rizal Technological University (RTU) have issued back COLA to their employees.

Cabrera said the Board of Regents, UP’s highest policy-making body, decided in 2003 to defer the payment of back COLA until the Supreme Court (SC) decides on the issue. Early this year, the SC ruled that the payment of the back COLA is legal.

“But UP has not paid our back COLA,” said Cabrera. “The UP administration cites a Department of Budget and Management (DBM) memorandum stating that only government-owned and -controlled corporations are covered by the Supreme Court decision and not national government agencies which include UP.” The Supreme Court decision, Cabrera said, makes no such distinction.

He added, “President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued an order to release P1 billion ($18.5 million, based on an exchange rate of P54.15 per US dollar) for payment of back COLA, only to suddenly take it back.”

The strikers went on mass leave on Nov. 22 and 24. There was also a series of vigils through the week, as well as negotiations with the UP administration.

All-UP Academic Employees Union President Judy Taguiwalo, a professor at the College of Social Work and Community Development (CSWCD), said it was time to take the fight to a higher level. “For three years, the All-UP Workers Alliance has done many ways to send its message to the UP administration and the national government like dialogues, open letters and a rally at the DBM.”

Cabrera said the AUPWA will be holding consultations among its members in the coming days to plan for its next protest activities, among which is participation in a nationally-coordinated rally for the release of back COLA scheduled on Dec. 7.

The AUPWA also participated in the “People’s Procession” for truth, justice and human rights held in Manila Nov. 25. Bulatlat

© 2005 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.

All-Government Employees’ COLA Coalition's: MANIFESTO OF UNITY

The following Manifesto of Unity by the "All Government Employees COLA Coalition was adopted by the convenors during its 2nd meeting held at the CSWCD, U.P. Diliman on November 8, 2005.


WHEREAS, the Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6758 otherwise known as the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) for Government Employees effective July 1, 1989;

WHEREAS, section 12 of the said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and compensation into the basic salary of government employees except for those allowances enumerated therein and those that may be determined by Department of Budget and Management (DBM);

WHEREAS, to implement the quoted provision that DBM will determine such other allowances/and or additional compensation that may be deemed integrated into the basic salary, Sec. Diokno issued DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No.10, DBM National Compensation Circular Nos. 56 & 59 integrating among others the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) into the basic Salary;

WHEREAS, the DBM failed to inform the employees concerned by way of publication, and as required by law, its plan to integrate the COLA into the basic salary;

WHEREAS, the DBM published DBM CCC No. 10 only on March 16, 1999 and DBM NCC no. 59 and 56 only on May 3, 2004;

WHEREAS, since the time the law on salary standardization became effective, we as government employees have been unlawfully deprived of our COLA;

WHEREAS, salaries of the vast majority of government employees fall below the ever-rising cost of living, resulting in increasing economic hardship for the rank-and-file;

WHEREAS, the unlawful deprivation of COLA further eroded the living standards of government employees;

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court in the case of Philippine Ports Authority employees vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. 160396) held in favor of the grant of COLA to the employees of PPA covering the period from July 1, 1989 to March 16, 1999;

WHEREAS, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of PPA vs. COA shall be applicable to all government employees because we are all similarly situated with the PPA employees, the issue being non-publication of DBM Circulars which were supposed to integrate COLA into the basic salaries;

WHEREAS, the National Government should pay COLA not only to the employees of the GOCC and GFIs but also to the employees in the National Government Agencies under the principle of equal protection of the law;

WHEREAS, in a Cabinet meeting on September 9, 2005, Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ordered the DBM to release P1 billion as initial “staggered payment” of the unpaid COLA of government employees;

WHEREAS, said order was rescinded following a recommendation by DBM that payment of COLA be deferred;

WHEREAS, the DBM, in its National Budget Circular 2005-502, dated October 26, 2005, continues to prohibit the payment of the COLA of national government agency employees based on the argument that COLA was already integrated into the basic salary and that payment of the same will allegedly cause double compensation;

WHEREAS, said argument was already thrown out by the Supreme Court in the case of PPA vs. COA;

WHEREAS, Malacanang’s continued refusal to pay the back COLA constitutes a denial of justice to government employees nationwide, who have long clamored for restitution;

WHEREAS, government employees nationwide have banded together to form the All-Government Employees’ COLA Coalition;

WHEREFORE, the Coalition hereby demands the following:

1) The immediate payment by the National Government of the unpaid COLA of national and local government agency, state universities and colleges, government-owned and controlled corporation and government financial institution employees;

2) That each individual employee entitled to back COLA be provided with an individual computation of the amount due him/her, based on official payroll records;

3) The allocation by National Government of a budget for the payment of said COLA.

Convenors:

Alliance of Health Workers (AHW)
Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT)
Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE)
Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA)
Quezon City Public School Teachers Association (QCPSTA)
All-UP Workers Union
All-UP Academic Employees Union
Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital Employees Union
National Children Hospital Employees Association
San Lazaro Hospital Employees Association - AHW
Tondo Medical Center Employees Association - AHW
National Orthopedic Hospital Workers Union - AHW
National Center for Mental Health Employees Association - AHW
Makati Public School Teachers Association
Department of Labor and Employment Employees Union - COURAGE
Social Welfare Employees Association of the Philippines - COURAGE
Department of Education Employees Union

Public Health Workers Go BOLD For COLA Back Pay

Press Release
October 20, 2005
References:
Mr. Jossel Ebesate, Secretary General, AHW
CP # 09189276381
Ms. Emma Manuel, AHW President
CP # 09178008634


Hundreds of Public Health Workers from the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), San Lazaro Hospital, National Center for Mental Health and other hospitals under the Department of Health (DOH) in their bold painted bodies gathered in front of the PGH today to press their demand to the government to pay their back pay of the cost of living allowance (COLA) amounting to P85,000.00 for each of the government employees. “The GMA government is hell bent in imposing E-VAT to the already impoverish Filipinos just to pay its foreign debts, but its debt to the health workers is taken for granted”, said Ms. Emma Manuel, AHW president.

The rallying public health workers lead by the All U.P. Workers Union and the Alliance of Health Workers (AHW) demanded that the national government through the Department of Budget and Management and respective government agencies immediately release P1 Billion for an initial payment of COLA as prescribed by Cabinet memorandum dated September 9, 2005.

Mr. Jossel I. Ebesate, President of the All UP Workers Union in Manila and Secretary General of the AHW concluded that: “Now is the time for the government to walk the talk that it cares for its own health care givers. If it really served the interest of the people, no other concrete example would suffice than paying its own debts to its own employees.”

It must be recalled that in 1989 during the implementation of R.A. 6758 (Salary Standardization Law), the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) failed to publish in the National Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation the Implementing Rules and Regulations as required by law. It was only in 1999 and 2004 that said guidelines was published for employees in government owned and controlled corporations (GOCC) and other government employees, respectively. Said DBM guidelines stipulated among others that allowances and other income (COLA included) were already incorporated in the basic salary hence, the payment of which were no longer authorized, eliciting series of charges from concerned government employees that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, in a series of Supreme Court decisions (7 as of last account) starting from De Jesus, et. al .vs. Commission on Audit (COA) in 1998 to PPA vs. COA on September 6, 2005, the Court consistently ruled that said DBM Guidelines were declared “ineffective” in the absence of publication, hence “inapplicable.” The Court further ruled that: “in consonance of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, and considering that the employees were all similarly situated as to the matter of the COLA… they should all be treated similarly. All – not only incumbents as of July 1, 1989 – should be allowed to received back pay corresponding to the said benefits from July 1, 1989 to the new effectivity date…”

Kuryente

Noong nakaraang linggo, ang unyon ay pinutakte ng kaliwa't kanang tanong kung totoo daw na mayroong ibibigay na humigit-kumulang na P20,000 bawat isang kawani ng UP (kabilang ang PGH) bilang paunang bayad sa back COLA. Ang balitang ito ay mariin nating pinasinungalingan at anumang balita tungkol sa napipintong pagbibigay nito sa mga kawaning UP ay pawang walang batayan.

Ang totoo ay ang Unyon ay mayroon nang sulat noong nakaran pang dalawang linggo sa ating Vice President for Legal Affairs, Prof. Marvic Leonen kaugnay sa isyung ito pagkaraang ipinalabas ng Supreme Court ang bago nitong desisyon kaugnay sa back COLA (G.R. No. 160396, PPA Employees vs. COA, September 6, 2005). Pagkasagot ng ating sulat (na ating inaasahang paborable sa ating posisyon) ay magkakaron ulit tayo ng panibagong kampanya sa loob ng UP para sa ating COLA back pay. Ito ay habang wala pang desisyon ang Supreme Court kaugnay naman sa kasong isinampa ng OSG Employees noong 1992 laban sa DBM na siyang dapat babalikat sa pagbabayad ng back COLA at hindi lamang ang bawat ahensiya dahil sa ang DBM ang siyang nagkamali sa pagpapatupad ng RA 6758 (Salary Standardization Law) noong 1989.

Matatandaang ang All UP Workers Union din ang unang nangampanya nito pagkatapos ng CNA signing sa pagitan ng UP at ng AUPWU noong 2002, na ang kinalabasan ay ang pagsampa ng UP (at pagtanggap ng Supreme Court) ng Motion to Intervene sa kasong isinampa ng OSG Employees sa Supreme Court at ang pagtanggi ng Board of Regents ng kahit paunang bayad sa back pay kahit pa humantong ang ating kampanya sa panandaliang "pagkulong" natin sa mga kasapi ng BOR sa Board Room ng UP Diliman at UP Manila.

Kayat ang pakiusap natin sa mga kapwa kawani ng UP (kabilang ang PGH) ay huwag tayong padadala sa mga nagkukunyaring naglalakad daw ng ating back COLA sa UP. Ni HA ni HO ay wala nga tayong narinig sa kanila noong sila pa ang kinikilalang "sole and exclusive bargaining unit" (1994-2000) kung saan sila ang kausap ng UP noong 1998 ng lumabas ang kauna-unahang desisyong ng Supreme Court kaugnay sa pagbabayad ng back COLA, ngayon pa kayang hanggang panggugulo na lamang sa mga isyu ang kaya nilang gawin?

Palagi po tayong sumangguni sa bukod tanging unyon na nagdadala ng tunay na unyunismo sa UP (kasama ang PGH), ang All UP Workers Union. At inasahan sana namin na sumama ang mas malawak na bilang ng mga kawani sa ating panibagong kampanya para sa back pay ng COLA upang tuluyan nating makamit ang tagumpay

Mabuhay ang mga kawani ng UP at PGH!

Rule of Law and 'The Godfather'

First posted 02:05am (Mla time) Sept 09, 2005
By Raul Pangalangan
Inquirer News Service

WHEN legal technicalities were employed to suppress critical evidence during the impeachment of President Joseph Estrada, people mocked it as "legal gobbledygook." When legal technicalities were employed to block the impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, full-page ads called it a victory for the rule of law. What's the difference?

When pro-impeachment lawyers walked out of the Estrada trial, they were hailed as heroes acting out their moral indignation. When pro-impeachment congressmen walked out of the Arroyo hearing to protest the railroading of the proceedings, they were branded as unparliamentary and uncouth. What gives?

Abroad, the newspapers report sightings of Elvis, the King from Graceland and beyond. Hereabouts, the papers report sightings of Garci, the conspiring Election Commissioner fleeing disgrace in the homeland. How low can we go?

The congressional choking of the Arroyo impeachment is not the triumph of the rule of law, but of Mafia-style politics. Erstwhile anti-Arroyo congressmen mysteriously did not vote to uphold the impeachment charges? Look no farther than "The Godfather" movie, in which a witness at a Senate hearing suddenly clammed up. Confused by the Catholic Church hierarchy's waffling on Ms Arroyo? The bishops were so big on the question of morality when it was Estrada's neck on the dock, but now they are suddenly reduced to quibbling that Ms Arroyo's culpability was just moral but not legal. Again recall how Don Michael Corleone so piously, so solemnly, received a papal citation.

The Inquirer's editorial last Wednesday noted the recent appointments by President Arroyo that rewarded her loyal congressmen and some offers dangled to entice anti-Arroyo legislators to switch sides. On the floor of the House of Representatives, some congressmen were candid enough to say that they blocked the Arroyo impeachment because the President had been so "generous" to their district, referring I suppose to their overflowing gratitude for the flow of pork-barrel money.

The biggest irony is that those full-page, paid ads supporting President Arroyo may be motivated less by love for the law and more by a loathing for Arroyo's legal successor, Vice President Noli de Castro. It bespeaks a class bias by the affluent, educated Filipino, looking down on a duly elected Vice President because he is not one of their own, and who consider it unthinkable to have him as their leader.

The pro-Arroyo middle forces go to great lengths, worthy of intellectual contortionists, to explain why President Arroyo must not go. Estrada was ousted on the issue of his moral fitness but Ms Arroyo must stay despite the moral cloud, they say, because we need to be united. They claim to venerate the Constitution but will do everything to thwart Ms Arroyo's constitutional successor.

Well, guys, if national unity is valued in itself, and the rule of law says that the Vice President is next in line, why couldn't you do all that "uniting" behind Noli? Why embrace the Constitution only when it can be twisted to support Arroyo, but not when it categorically benefits her duly-elected Vice President?

Today the rule of law is nothing but mere rhetorical cover for what are essentially Machiavellian aims. I wonder if even those who now speak of it so loftily hold it "truly, madly, deeply" in their hearts.

The ideal of "a government of laws and not of men" is supposed to be the antidote to feudal governance. It is the modern response to backward notions of power. It is institutional, rather than personal; rule-based, rather than discretionary; and it aims to be just rather than merely convenient. The rule of law is not an ideal that can be switched on and off, depending on what is politically expedient.

That precisely is the danger with deploying the rule of law as a rhetorical weapon. It is a weapon that is programmed to respect certain principles. Unlike guns that can be made to shoot any target chosen by the gun-wielder, the rule of law can command the wielder to shoot some but not others and only under certain conditions. That is why our Supreme Court had to provide juridically acceptable accounts of Cory Aquino's extra-constitutional People Power and Ms Arroyo's shortcut to Malacañang. Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, said that the trials aimed "to establish incredible events with credible evidence" and exalted the tribunal as "the highest tribute that force ever paid to reason."

Those who exalt the crushing of the impeachment as the triumph of the rule of law may have missed the Constitution's Preamble. It states that "We, the sovereign Filipino people" seek the "blessings of … democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth…." Instead they find the rule of law in the deliberate misreading of the Constitution. But that has been the hallmark of this crisis over the Garci tapes, when being legalistic was mistaken for being just.

When President Arroyo gave her "I am sorry" speech for her repeated improper phone calls to an election official, she no sooner finessed it a week after with a "But I never admitted anything" speech. When her spokesmen said that the truth must be ascertained in the courts and not in the streets, we naively believed that she would allow the people and their elected deputies to hear the evidence against her. But President Arroyo's minions in Congress killed the impeachment charges and never gave the Senate a chance to examine the evidence. Gloria got her day in court. The Filipino people did not.

Comments to: passionforreason@gmail.com

(c)2005 www.inq7.net all rights reserved

'Benjamins' of the House

A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY)
By Jose C. Sison
The Philippine Star 08/26/2005

The ongoing political drama (or comedy according to many others) happening in the House of Representatives impeachment proceedings somehow gives us a glimpse of our country's future – as clearly seen in the young, fresh faces who have been previously silent and preferred to stay in the background while the gristly veterans do their thing. Now they are starting to emerge from the shadow of their more experienced colleagues whose old brand of politics has given that Chamber a rather unwholesome reputation. It is indeed encouraging to see them speak up and make a firm and principled stand on the burning issues of the day.

The simplicity of their position and the purity oftheir intentions are easily noticeable. They are reassuring indications that the impeachment process will have a credible ending and that our country still has a bright and rosy future. I am sure there are still many of them in the lower house who will eventually speak out their still idealistic minds and make their presence felt.

These young legislators know that removal of a President is an extreme measure that should not be taken lightly as it has very grave political consequences on the nation and its government headed by an elected incumbent whose tenure has been precisely fixed by the Constitution for stability and permanence. Hence they acknowledge that it must be done in accordance with the "rule of law" or through the impeachment process. And for the "rule of law" to prevail, they realize that impeachment rules must be strictly enforced and carefully followed even if it takes time to do so.

Yet in their idealistic minds, they are also very much aware that upholding the "rule of law" means finding out or letting the truth come out of the impeachment process; that any proceeding resulting in a failure to determine the whole truth is never in accordance with the rule of law. Thus under the existing Constitutional scheme, they have correctly raised the point that the lower house's real function in the impeachment process is merely to determine whether or not to charge the President rather than to try and establish the truth or falsity of the charges which are the functions of the Senate; that when they impeach the president,they are not adjudging her as already guilty but precisely giving her the opportunity to prove her accusers wrong. For these reasons our young and idealistic legislators have started to speak out and voice their concerns on the apparent move of their more politically savvy colleagues to prevent process from reaching the Senate. They have seen through a scheme where their colleagues will use their superiority in numbers to cut short the impeachment proceedings through some hair-splitting technicalities. They believe that this move is not good for the President or beneficial to the country; that it will only plunge us deeper into a prolonged crisis and political bickering.

The veteran politicians in Congress should not ignore their young and idealistic colleagues. Pushing through with their scheme may even boomerang and alienate and drive these young and principled men and women away from their fold. Listening to these young people is listening to the voice of the nation's conscience. After all, they arethe hope of the motherland and also have a vital role in nation building.* * *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net
Copyright (c) 2005 philstar.com . All rights reserved.

Juridical Guerrilla Warfare

By Raul Pangalangan
This story was taken from www.inq7.net
First posted 03:38am (Mla time) Aug 26, 2005
Inquirer News Service

THE BEST way to kill the impeachment complaint is to wear out the people. No need to show that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is innocent. Just tire the sovereign people, bore them, make them indifferent to whether or not she is guilty. Reduce Gloriagate from a debate about principles to a wager on technicalities bereft of moral content. That is the peril of the vote by the House ofRepresentatives' justice committee to focus first on "prejudicial questions." To paraphrase Sun Tzu, war is like fire. Rather than putting it out, let it burn itself out.

Three impeachment complaints have been filed against President Arroyo, the first, filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano, apparently the weakest. The next step, under the Constitution, is for the proper congressional committee to say whether the complaints are sufficient in form and substance.

However, the Constitution also says: "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." Pro-Arroyo congressmen say that the committee must first settle the "prejudicial" issue of whether the Lozano complaint has triggered off the one-year bar and, if yes, whether it can be supplemented by the stronger complaint drafted by opposition lawyers. Their goal, obviously, is to lock in the vulnerable Lozano version and knock out the high-octane opposition draft.

The Supreme Court has laid down the controlling doctrine. In Francisco v. House of Representatives, the Court cited the one-year bar and threw out a second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The anti-Davide forces invoked Rules 16/17 of the impeachment procedure adopted by Congress, which says that "impeachment proceedings [are] deemed initiated" only after the justice committee has acted on the complaint; by that rule, the first complaint couldn't have activated the one-year rule. The Court thus struck down Rules16/17 as unconstitutional and pegged the triggering moment much earlier: when the complaint is filed and referred to the justice committee.

Citing one of the founding fathers of the 1987 Constitution, the Court said: "Father [Joaquin] Bernas further explains: The 'impeachment proceeding' is not initiated when the complaint is transmitted to the Senate for trial [nor] when the House deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee.... Rather, the proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that follow." Pro-Arroyo congressmen now claim that Lozano has tripped the constitutional switch.

But, as Rep. Francis Escudero said at a forum in the University of the Philippines, opposition legislators have anticipated this, and deftly packaged their complaint so that it can either "stand alone" as an independent complaint or merely supplement Lozano's.

There is no technical bar to a supplement. I have heard forced analogies to judicial process, both civil and criminal, all of them inapt to the "sui generis" ("class by itself") nature of impeachment proceedings. The current procedural rules on impeachment are silent on supplements. Therefore, to hinder the other complaints is an exercise of discretion. Our legislators must not wash their hands through technicalities, and be candid enough to confess that they are voting their true selves.

This gap ("lacuna") in the rules beckons us to turn to the "intent of the framers." Note the following exchange in the Constitutional Commission when they drafted the one-year bar.

Commissioner Villacorta: "Does this mean that even if evidence is discovered to support another charge ... a second ... proceeding cannot be initiated [within] one year? ... The intention may be to protect the public official from undue harassment. [But] is this not undue limitation on the accountability of public officers?"

Commissioner Romulo: "Yes, the intention here really is to limit. This is not only to protect public officials ... from harassment but also to allow the [Congress] to do its work, which is lawmaking. Impeachment proceedings take a lot of time."

Hearing the three complaints together will advance this constitutional intent -- no undue "harassment" of the respondent, or additional work for Congress.

But in addition, Rep. Teodoro Locsin shows that there is in fact a proper technical way to construe the three complaints. Congressional time is not normal people's time, he said. Congress can simply stop the clock and by parliamentary fiat freeze time, and the record will not show that they actually debated past midnight. Now by such reckoning, time stood still while Congress was on its constitutionally mandated one-month break. That Lozano filed first in that twilight zone is of no consequence.

Which brings us back to the controlling moment in Francisco, namely, July 25, when Congress re-convened, the "session day" when Speaker Jose de Venecia endorsed the complaints to the justice committee, simultaneously at 11:20 a.m. (recorded in the official Journal). Therefore, Francisco will hold that none of the complaints could have blocked off the others.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That, shorn of fancy lawyer talk, is one big part of the rule of law. The justices read the one-year bar liberally in favor of the "accused." This gave solace to the Chief Justice, who was worthy, but now it purportedly gives safe haven to President Arroyo, who is not. The solution is not to fudge what the Court said in Francisco, but to carry out our compelling intuitions through the disciplined craft of the law, and in Unger's words, "find the mind's opportunity in the heart's revenge." Remember Sun Tzu: Take away the energy of the enemy, take away their heart. * * *

Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com

(c)2005 www.inq7.net all rights reserved