It seems an opportune time for the President to direct state "think tanks" to forward their Position Papers or, better yet, respective Policy Memoranda, on an issue that has long held sway without any tangible results. Resolving the emerging retirement crisis cum pension dilemma has proved futile that it's best to commission a rapid appraisal study by any private consultancy group to afford FM Jr. the most thought-out policy option to implement en seguida.

Sadly, no workable policy option has been articulated — in whole or in part — for the interest of the stakeholders in this societal quagmire. An official statement from Malacañang is long overdue but none such is yet forthcoming, if at all. No doubt, the proverbial political will — to act or not to act — is pretty much a part of the equation.

Meanwhile, everybody wants to join the national conversation — experts, pundits, scholars, interest groups, mainstream media. While at this orgy, it has become all too clear that there's no deliberate, determined, or detached sense of objectivity and balance necessary to construct the best of policy options and outcomes. So when would one save the pond where water lilies double in size each day, choking all other forms of life living underneath?

Then, there's this "easygoing" commentary in another broadsheet by a certain writer who was a former finance secretary that interestingly delved into "reforming" the much-talked about MUP pension. Unfortunately, for any average reader or scholar of public policy at that, his reference to Republic Act 340 may have been a "misreading."

In the interest of vibrant democratic discourse, let me unbundle a few observations and walk you through, dear readers, viz:

One, it's entirely misleading to assert that the "current benefits" enjoyed by MUPs do stem from a dated 1948 law or RA 340. The term, "military and uniformed personnel," is only of recent memory. Nothing throughout any academic literature, let alone the law, is any mention made referencing the concept of the MUP.  In the law's title itself, the reference is to "the Armed Forces of the Philippines," nothing else besides.

Two, the notion of "indexation" is nowhere in the referenced law spoken of. There's reason to be mindful, rather than "carelessly" stating about any grant of "automatic promotion upon retirement" without qualification. Further to that, to state that soldiers and "other uniformed personnel" (where such mention is zero) don't have salary deductions for their pension system defies — historicism, jurisprudence, or   evidence.