Without delving deeper into the legal maze of often overlapping legislated enactments, the time-bound conferment of veteran status with its companion pecuniary benefits may have been lost in translation.

In effect, the problematique runs something like this, viz., cannot the State grant not only an across-the-board P5,000 monthly for military personnel conferred veteran status upon reaching the age of 65, but likewise a pro-rated retirement package based on years of service and rank upon honorable discharge or separation?

This is in lieu of a veteran (i.e., RA 6948) not having met the threshold for optional or mandatory retirement. Hence, if a retiree who completes 20 years of service receives a P30,000 monthly pension, a veteran of similar rank with only six years of service should be entitled to a proportionate P9,000 a month as well.

Liberal justice is typically grounded in rational considerations, not in budgetary simplicity. For another, non-commissioned personnel cannot be classified the same as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces.

When the preaching to the choir is that “rank has its privileges,” it’s taken to mean that with “rank comes great responsibility,” and, thus, to pay a first lieutenant and a private the same rate in old-age pension as veterans is anathema to a tradition deeply ingrained in the military’s organizational culture. The principle of seniority must be absolutely observed in the military establishment as a classic management model.

There’s a clear distinction between a veteran and a retiree but in praxis, the military hierarchy has used the dichotomy quite interchangeably when it also grants an old-age pension to retirees reaching the 65-year threshold for administrative purposes.

The justification is unquestionable, given that a retiree is deemed honorably discharged upon optional or mandatory retirement. But where’s the rub? It’s in the fact that one who served at least six years who separated from the service qualifies at a future time (at age 65) as a veteran and only then is eligible for the P5,000 old-age monthly pension.

If the defense and military establishments find it in their kind hearts to honor the men and women who had served in the military for at least six years as respectable veterans, why not calibrate a retirement schedule factored from their last rank, last salary and service timeline?

In this way, these aging veterans in the twilight years of their dear lives can get to fully enjoy the honor and prestige that they once demonstrated for flag and country. It’s one best practice to democratize opportunities and benefits as well as equitably grant the same rightful remuneration they deserve to those who served in the military. In the US military, only 180 days of service confers on one veteran status.

So again, the term “veteran” generally refers to those who served in specific historical campaigns or met the minimum six-year requirement, while “retiree” usually refers to those with 20 or more years of service.

Let us gladly make room for State policy to blossom and flourish and “foster socioeconomic security for the well-being of our veterans in recognition of their patriotic service for the cause of freedom and democracy — with nothing lost in translation. If we give retirees an old-age pension, we should also give veterans an old-age retirement benefit in the spirit of quid pro quo.

Put simply, if the country is worth fighting for, those who did so for the sake of our cherished freedoms and liberty should be worth granting a bigger bundle of joy at a time of great need.

As one unknown author said, “We don’t know them all, but we owe them all.” In fact, instead of 65 as a reckoning age, why not simply follow the 56-age limit for veterans’ pension packages?

Time to push the pen, Mister the Good Secretary.