Fiscal burden of pay hike

Fiscal burden of pay hike | Daily Tribune

In the higher order of things, only the Commander-in-Chief and the top general and flag ranks in the military and uniformed services behind closed doors and on undisclosed dates forged the agreement to implement the recent hike in the salary, allowances and pecuniary benefits of the burgeoning military and uniformed personnel, aka MUP, population.

The significant increases spread over three tranches march in with the years 2026, 2027, and 2028, or until the President’s end of term. The broad-range payouts then guarantee the President’s hold on power in case of any fortuitous event.

In starting to comprehend the pay scale, one would be inclined to think that what the government pays the MUP is classified as a “special purpose fund.” It is, by definition, “a public fund used for a privileged or specific group within the public sector,” or at least, is a “budgetary allocation in the General Appropriations Act that is often lump sum in nature, authorized for specific, often discretionary, purposes.”

Neither is the new salary scale classified as “provident funds” since these funds are not organized and managed by government employees for their own welfare and benefit, although in the past, there was the Retirement and Separation Benefits System.

Sadly, this pension fund was “heavily corrupted and mismanaged by top military officials,” which led to its bankruptcy and its deactivation by 2006. Funds were massively abused through unauthorized cash advances, “pabaon” for retiring chiefs of staff and anomalous real estate deals.

One convicted brigadier general alone misappropriated P250 million, a colonel P85 million in unauthorized releases, and a few more were convicted. Why must the national government shoulder what was supposed to be self-sufficient, or simply countenance over P13 billion in anomalous investments?

The statement, “taxes are the lifeblood of the government,” is a well-established legal and economic doctrine. This “lifeblood doctrine” highlights that taxation is essential for the survival and operation of the state. Without taxpayer money, a government cannot sustain and carry out its essential functions, or provide basic services to its citizens. Verily, taxes provide these “essential functionalities,” namely, peace and order, healthcare, education, infrastructure, disaster response.

From a public administration standpoint, the pay hike for military and uniformed personnel, it not being an explicit constitutional construct, emerges as the main trigger for the “clash between the military and civilian sectors” of the body polity where the former enjoys higher precedence.

In the context of a limited government budget, it’s crystal clear that the MUP partake of more and the civilian non-uniformed counterpart of less, yet both are public servants. If the budget gets depleted, then it’s as if public funds have turned to be rivalrous and excludable when the scheme should be the other way around.

Anyone in the civilian sector can readily dismiss as self-serving the MUP’s claim that they deserve the “extraordinary” pay hike because they put their lives on the line. For the longest time, the country has not been at war with any foreign power that poses a clear and present danger to limb, life, and well-being. It must be an insult to the intelligence to embrace this cliché since not every soldier fights an enemy, not every policeman engages a criminal, not every other uniformed personnel member clashes with a communist, a pirate, or a bandit.

The MUP are generally safe in their camps and barracks unless sent out on field operations, but even so, they are better protected than the commies, extremists, anarchists, terrorists.

There’s no forgetting that MUP pensions are fully funded by the national government despite their zero contribution to their pension fund or monthly salary deductions. Proposed reforms contemplate 5 to 9 percent of salary to make the pension fund sustainable.

The fiscal burden of the MUP pay hike is certainly beyond the carrying capacity of the government. Neither does it reflect a level-playing field on both sides of the equation. The economic cost might in due time be insurmountable.