Prosecutors’ woe over survivorship benefits
Public prosecutors are in mute protest. They feel that their role in the criminal justice system and the overall operation of government is not appreciated. They are essential cogs in the wheels of justice, yet they are not getting their worth. It’s an irony that while they are part of the justice system, they are victims of injustice, so they claim.
I refer to the decision of former Secretary Benjamin Diokno of the Department of Budget Management (DBM) disallowing payment of survivorship benefits to spouses of deceased prosecutors. Diokno has resorted to hermeneutics with a confused interpretation of the law and convoluted logic to frustrate the spirit and intention of the policy. Prosecutors maintained the interpretation of Diokno is way off the mark. The black letter of the law is crystal clear and not susceptible to DBM’s twisted interpretation.
In a well-researched seven-page exposition presented by the Prosecutors’ League of the Philippines (PLP) to DBM, they advanced three arguments, which DBM will be hard-pressed to outweigh. One, the denial earlier by Diokno based on Section 3, Republic Act (RA) 910 doesn’t apply to prosecutors. Said law was already amended and superseded by RA 9946 and likewise by RA 10071, Section 25, the pertinent and prevailing law which mandates: “ALL BENEFITS extended under RA 910… shall likewise be given to prosecutors.” Second, the principle that a new law prevails over an old law covering the same subject matter, with RA 10071 becoming effective on 28 May 2010. Thirdly, the principle that social legislations like the ones in issue shall be interpreted liberally in favor of the beneficiaries. The PLP’s letter is loaded with leading jurisprudence supporting its position.
What baffles the PLP is that “after RA 10071 took effect, (DBM) has been paying all claims by prosecutors or… spouses for gratuity, annuity, death and disability benefits under
RA 9946, all except survivorship.” The law speaks of payment of “all benefits,” and exclusion of one benefit defies logic.
I stand by my bias. My past kinship with the Department of Justice (DoJ) family may have blurred my objectivity. But still and all, I have a very strong feeling that PLP’s position could stand any objective vetting.
There is a sheer hope offered by the new leadership of DBM. The latest twist in this more than a decade tussle is an information allegedly from DBM Secretary Wendel Avisado that instead of the PLP instituting an arbitration proceeding, they write him first to provide him an opportunity to do something about it.
I had a front seat view of the travails and tribulations of public prosecutors. During my stint as DoJ Undersecretary I have observed how they toiled, burning a candle at both ends, ferreting out the truth and validity of complaints; collating evidence in a case buildup to support the theory of the case before filing the information in court; of being censured by judges during hearings for the absence of a witness, and their superiors breathing down their necks to resolve a case within the deadline. But the most disheartening is the suspicion by party-litigant that a prosecutor has succumbed to the lure of money for his ruling. Compounding these is the statistics that about 20 of them were ambushed, with many killed and one dying of COVID-19.
I am not saying public prosecutors are angels. Far from it. Human as they are, some must have lost their moral mooring to succumb to the temptation of get-rich-quick schemes. But I daresay that a considerable number has kept their moral values untainted. And the latter far outnumber the former.
The President must have some disheartening memories of the life of a public prosecutor being once a prosecutor himself. At no time in our history has there been so many appointments made in the prosecutorial service of our government as during his term. He could help relieve the prosecutors’ woes.
A civil law aphorism deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence says “justice must be tempered with mercy.” A plethora of cases decided by the High Tribunal used this doctrine as a guidepost. The DBM can do no less in resolving the issue.
“I
am not saying public prosecutors are angels. Far from it. Human as they are, some must have lost their moral mooring to succumb to the temptation of getrich-quick schemes.
“The
law speaks of payment of ‘all benefits,’ and exclusion of one benefit defies logic.