The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) has maintained its position that any legal opinion from the Department of Justice (DOJ) was no longer necessary over parity in ranks and salaries for its public attorneys and staff, as sought by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
PAO Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta, interviewed by The Manila Times, stressed that her agency’s long-delayed DBM request did not need any DOJ conformity because the former is an independent and autonomous office since it was established by Republic Act 9406, and “it is only attached to DOJ for purposes of policy and program coordination.” Rueda-Acosta issued the statement after the DBM asked the DOJ anew for its legal opinion on PAO’s request for parity in ranks and salaries of public attorneys and staff with their counterparts at the National Prosecution Service (NPS).
“We believe that no resolution from the DOJ is forthcoming, considering that the matter has been pending for more than two years,” said the chief public attorney, adding that she already explained in writing to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. the PAO’s position.
In a letter to DBM Undersecretary Wilford Will Wong, Rueda-Acosta, Deputy Chief Ana Lisa Soriano, and PAO-Metro Manila Director Revelyn Ramos-Dacpano said they were also expecting that no resolution would be forthcoming from the DBM despite PAO’s assertion of its independence and autonomy from the DOJ. Such inaction prevents the PAO from availing of the proper legal remedy, practically putting the matter in limbo, they lamented.
“At any rate, such inaction on the part of the DOJ should not serve as a deterrent to the granting of PAO’s request for parity in rank and salaries pursuant to a constitutional provision on the right to speedy disposition of cases,” the top PAO officials said.
PAO cited the case of the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) Corporation, which requested the respective concurrence of the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel to the engagement of legal advisors. The Supreme Court ruled that COA's inordinate delay in PSALM's request for concurrence amounted to grave abuse of discretion, violating PSALM's right to a speedy disposition of its case, as mandated by the Constitution.
“Applying the case by analogy, even without the DOJ's conformity to PAO’s request, the same may be granted,” Soriano said.
“In fact, the similar inordinate delay on the part of the DBM does not and should not deter the granting of the parity, especially since the Supreme Court en banc, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals had earlier sustained it," Soriano pointed out.
“Nothing more is left to be done by the DBM but to release the appropriate salaries of the concerned PAO officers,” said Alma Latosa, PAO’s financial planning and management service head, also a signatory to the letter. The top PAO officials said that it would be highly illogical for the DBM to claim inconsistent positions that public attorneys are qualified for retirement benefits under R.A. 10071 (NPS Law), but they are not entitled to the ranks and salaries under the same RA 10071, which is the present DBM position.
They emphasized that the non-recognition of the two offices’ parity would only demoralize public attorneys and encourage them to transfer to offices with better salaries and benefits. “Ultimately, the poor, underprivileged, and marginalized will bear the burden of having less compensated, less motivated, and therefore, less efficient lawyers – a reality inconsistent with the principle of social justice and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of adequate legal assistance to the poor,” Rueda-Acosta said.
