MANILA, Philippines—Did you know that when the Social Security System (SSS) was first proposed, one of the most vocal in opposing it was the Philippine Medical Association?

I thought about that historical footnote when I saw the newspaper supplements put out by the SSS to celebrate its 51st anniversary. That’s a long time for an institution, but even today there is strong resistance to using this system, both by employers and employees. Which is a shame, because for all the deficiencies of the SSS, it can be a lifeline for many Filipinos, offering a safety net in times of unemployment, sickness, disability, or retirement, as well as providing a way to get money for a home or a business investment.

After World War II, as many countries throughout the world went about the difficult task of rebuilding their economies, governments realized how fragile societies were and looked for ways to set up safety nets. This included the national health services established in several Western European countries and Canada.

The United States chose a path with less government intervention. For example, it did not put up a national health service. Instead, it eventually had a Medicare system tied to their Social Security System. It was a system we borrowed, all the way down to the names. (Our Medicare eventually gave way though to a new PhilHealth.)

In the United States, the American Medical Association was a major force that blocked the establishment of a national health service, painting it as “communist” and “socialistic.” They even tried to influence the Canadians not to put up such a system, but the latter resisted.

Socialist

Robert Stauffer, an American political scientist, wrote a book, “The Development of an Interest Association,” which includes a description of how the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) also raised the “communist” and “socialist” bogeys when Congress was debating an SSS law. PMA argued that in the private sector, the social security needs of employees should be left to the free market.

It sounds almost ridiculous today that an SSS would be “communist” but that was the thinking in the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War and anti-communism. The SSS in the United States has become as American as American pie. I got a US SSS number in my teens, as a working student and I used the number so often I can still rattle off the nine digits from memory. Everyone is covered, except for “illegal aliens,” who are not allowed to get an SSS number. (There are ways, of course, to circumvent the rules—just ask one of the Filipino “TNTs,” or illegal aliens.)

Our Social Security Act (RA 1161) was passed in 1954, with the SSS itself becoming operational in 1957. Coverage remains low even in the formal sector, i.e., people working for registered businesses. One reason is that employers refuse to put up their share of the payments. Even more devious are employers who claim to be participating, and deduct SSS contributions from their employees’ paychecks but do not remit these payments to the SSS.

There has also been resistance from employees themselves. In 1985, when I put up an NGO, my staff members initially asked not to participate in the SSS, arguing, like some employers, that the contributions were an added burden. They had heard all kinds of rumors about the difficulties in claiming SSS benefits. There were also rumors about corruption inside the SSS, of SSS numbers being “hijacked” to get fictitious loans. I still hear these rumors today, with some people urging me to check if my SSS number is still intact. (I currently use the Government Service Insurance System, or GSIS, since, as a UP employee, I’m actually a government worker.)

I was able to convince my NGO co-workers to try the SSS, and today the NGO is almost religious in paying its SSS contributions. The staff just can’t imagine life without the SSS. They know the system inside out, applying for all kinds of benefits, from short sick leaves (did you know you can do that?) to housing loans.

Informal sector

In 1997, RA 8282 amended the old Social Security Act to widen membership to include the self-employed, farmers, fisherfolk, non-working spouses, household helpers and the informal sector workers. Progress in covering these new sectors has been even slower, mainly because many people in these sectors still do not know they can get SSS membership.

Again, it’s a shame because I have seen the system work for household helpers. I had our “mayordoma” [chief house help] covered, and since she retired 10 years ago she’s been living a comfortable life in Bacolod City, helped in part by her SSS monthly retirement pension. Our family also had a driver who was forced into retirement when he had a stroke but because he was an SSS member, he was able to get disability pay and today still gets monthly retirement pay.

But another reason for resistance, and I’m writing this hoping my friends in the SSS are reading my column, is that people still find the system too intimidating. Some weeks back, I wrote about SSS coverage for household help. Some readers wrote in to tell me they wanted to do that but the SSS system—from registration to the remittances—is much too complicated for employers. I realized it’s easy for me to do this because I ask my former NGO to include my remittances when they send their office papers. I know, too, that the office actually has one person practically specializing in taking care of all the government transactions, including business permits, SSS remittances, withholding taxes, income taxes, real estate taxes.

All that can be time-consuming and I am hearing that these responsibilities have become part of the “menial” tasks assigned to homemakers (housewives). Now, in this age of electronic banking and the Internet, shouldn’t the SSS be looking into ways to make it easier for homemakers to get their helpers covered?

Where are we headed with the SSS? I’d like to think coverage and benefits will continue to expand, but I sense there’s still confusion, and mistrust of the SSS. It doesn’t help that the GSIS has been so controversial lately, from their e-card system to their feud with Manila Electric Co., and many Filipinos presume the SSS and the GSIS are the same.

Who suffers? It’s the man and woman on the street, the ones who continue not to have SSS coverage, or have the coverage but do not know how to claim their benefits. The SSS is the biggest social safety net we have today, one which becomes even more important as the economic crisis worsens.

* * *

Email: mtan@inquirer.com.ph