20/06/2016
[ADVISORY] DOJ opinion on retirement benefits for PAO lawyers out
Opinion No. 36, s. 2016 states that the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from giving legal advice on matters pending before the courts and that “the resolution of this conflict rests upon a proper interpretation of the prohibition in Section 16, RA 10071 and its effects on Section 5, RA 9406 -- which is a matter already with the courts.”
However, the Opinion noted its observation that the issues raised by the DBM and retired PAO lawyers both have basis. It said that the issue “prescind from a divergence in the interpretation” of Section 5 of the PAO Law in relation to Section 16 of RA 10071. “While Section 5, RA 9406 clearly provides that the rank, salary grade, allowances and other emoluments of the public attorneys shall be the same as those of their counterparts in the National Prosecution Services, the prohibition in Section 16, RA 10071, expressly provides otherwise. In other words, what Section 5 of RA 94016 allows, Section 16 of RA 10071 disallows. In this sense, and in view of the clear statutory conflict, the arguments of the PAO (that the benefits under Section 16, RA 10071 may be retroactively applied to them) and of the DBM Legal Service (that the prohibition in the same provision overturns Section 5, RA 9406) both have basis.”
The link to the copy of the DOJ Opinion No. 36, s. 2016 is here: http://www.dbm.gov.ph/?p=15923
The Department of Justice’s opinion on the payment of retirement benefits of lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) under RA No. 9406[1] in relation to RA No. 10071, otherwise known as the “Prosecution Service Act of 2010.”