Navigating the Legality of Early Retirement Incentives in Philippine Local Governance

G.R. No. 253127, February 27, 2024

Imagine a local government wanting to reward its loyal employees with an early retirement package. Sounds good, right? But what if that package isn’t in line with national laws? This Supreme Court case shines a light on the tricky area of local government budgeting, specifically when it comes to early retirement incentives. The central question: Can local governments create their own retirement incentive programs, or are they bound by national regulations? This case involving Puerto Princesa City’s Early & Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (EVSIP) provides a crucial answer.

Understanding the Legal Framework for Government Retirement Plans

In the Philippines, government employee retirement benefits are primarily governed by Commonwealth Act No. 186 (the Government Service Insurance Act) as amended by Republic Act No. 4968. This law establishes the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), which manages the retirement funds and benefits for government workers. A key provision relevant to this case is Section 28(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, which restricts parallel or supplementary retirement plans.

Section 28(b) states, “*[N]o law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other act shall be passed or promulgated which would provide for retirement benefits other than those already provided for in existing laws*.”

This means that local government units (LGUs) cannot create their own retirement plans that add to or duplicate the benefits already offered by GSIS, unless specifically authorized by law. The intent is to maintain uniformity and prevent the creation of potentially unsustainable or discriminatory retirement schemes.

For example, if a city council passes an ordinance granting additional cash bonuses to retiring employees on top of their GSIS benefits, that ordinance would likely be deemed illegal because it creates a supplementary retirement benefit not authorized by national law.

The Puerto Princesa City EVSIP Case: A Detailed Breakdown

In 2010, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa City passed Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-2010, establishing the Early & Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (EVSIP). This program offered incentives to city government employees who opted for early retirement. The Commission on Audit (COA) subsequently issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) for payments made under the EVSIP, totaling PHP 89,672,400.74, arguing that the program violated Section 28(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186.

Here’s a chronological breakdown of the case’s journey:

• 2010: Puerto Princesa City enacts Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-2010, creating the EVSIP.
• 2013: COA auditors issue NDs disallowing EVSIP benefit payments.
• Administrative Appeals: The individuals liable under the NDs appeal within the COA system, ultimately reaching the COA En Banc.
• COA En Banc Decision: The COA En Banc denies the appeals, affirms the NDs, and forwards the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation.
• Petition to the Supreme Court: Without filing a motion for reconsideration with the COA, the petitioners bring the case directly to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari.

The Supreme Court, in its original decision, sided with the COA, declaring Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-2010 null and void. The Court emphasized that the EVSIP acted as a separate and supplementary early retirement plan, violating the proscription in Commonwealth Act No. 186.

The Court stated, “*There is no express exception for local government units (LGUs) from the general provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 186, and there is not even an enabling law providing for LGUs to have their own independent incentive package plans.*”

The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, raising arguments about collateral attacks on the ordinance and asserting good faith. The Court partially granted the motion, absolving two of the petitioners (Herrera and Atienza) of monetary liability, while upholding its original decision regarding the illegality of the EVSIP and the liability of the other petitioners.

The Supreme Court clarified that the COA’s disallowance, even with its phrasing, did not constitute a collateral attack on the ordinance. It was merely an observation on the lack of legal basis for the disbursements.

What This Ruling Means for Local Governments and Officials

This case serves as a stark reminder to local government units that they must adhere to national laws and regulations when creating employee benefit programs. It clarifies that LGUs cannot create supplementary retirement plans without explicit legal authorization. Local officials must ensure that any incentive programs they implement are aligned with existing laws and do not duplicate or augment GSIS benefits unless specifically permitted.

The ruling also highlights the importance of good faith in government transactions. While some officials may be shielded from liability if they acted in good faith and relied on existing ordinances, those directly involved in enacting illegal legislation may still face consequences. The Court uses the case of Herrera and Atienza to discuss good faith for those implementing versus creating laws/ordinances. This is an important distinction.

Key Lessons:

• Compliance with National Laws: LGUs must ensure that all employee benefit programs comply with national laws, particularly those governing retirement benefits.
• No Supplementary Retirement Plans: Unless expressly authorized, LGUs cannot create retirement plans that supplement or duplicate GSIS benefits.
• Good Faith Defense: While good faith can be a mitigating factor, it may not protect officials who were directly involved in enacting illegal legislation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can a local government offer any incentives to retiring employees?

A: Yes, but these incentives must not be structured as supplementary retirement benefits. For example, lump sum amounts or healthcare benefits that are not tied to years of service may be permissible.

Q: What happens if a local government implements an illegal retirement plan?

A: The Commission on Audit can disallow the disbursements, and the responsible officials may be held liable to refund the amounts. They may also face administrative or criminal charges.

Q: Does this ruling apply to all types of government employees?

A: Yes, the principles in this case apply to all government employees covered by the GSIS.

Q: What is the role of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in this process?

A: The DBM reviews local government budgets to ensure compliance with national laws. The Supreme Court encourages closer coordination between the COA and DBM to prevent the enactment of illegal local ordinances.

Q: What should a local government do if it wants to create a new employee benefit program?

A: The LGU should first consult with legal experts and the DBM to ensure that the program complies with all applicable laws and regulations. Obtaining a legal opinion before implementation is highly recommended.

ASG Law specializes in government regulations and local government matters. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.