Armed forces in need of organizational soul-searching to address bad practices, ballooning pension services

This is in response to Inquirer’s article, “Gov’t eyes reforms in military personnel’s pension to avoid ‘fiscal collapse’” (News, 3/28/23). The article pertains to Finance Secretary Benjamin Diokno’s proposal for a radical change to the military and uniformed personnel (MUP) pension as part of the government program to address the ballooning government budget deficit and avert possible fiscal collapse. The current MUP pension system covers retirees from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Bureau of Fire Protection, Philippine National Police, Philippine Public Safety College, Philippine Coast Guard, and the Bureau of Corrections.

The services rendered by these various defense, security, police, and other uniformed services are generally referred to as “common goods.” By technical definition, common goods are distinguished by nonrivalry and nonexcludability. Nonrivalry in consumption means that “one person’s consumption of a good does not preclude consumption of the good by others.” Nonexcludability means “there is no effective way of excluding individuals from the benefit of the good once it comes into existence.” Everyone can simultaneously obtain the benefit from a common good such as street lighting, a global positioning system, or environmental protection. On the other hand, the Philippine Constitution specifically provides an equal protection clause that guarantees no law shall be enacted that will exclude someone (regardless of race, nationality, or religion) from benefiting national defense, public highway system, or police services. Since the MUP pension is not a “common goods” but rather an individual pension benefit, therefore pension for retired MUP has to be taken out from the Department of National Defense (DND) budget, and so with the Philippine National Police and other uniformed services from their respective department budgets. To do this, the DND has to do a lot of organizational soul-searching within the Armed Forces of the Philippines and so with other departments with a uniformed service attached to its organizational structure.

On the part of the AFP, the persistent issue of officers’ use of enlisted personnel as personal drivers, cooks, and gardeners continues despite the AFP’s effort to get rid of this practice. The utilization of junior officers enlisted in various AFP garrison (noncombat) units is squandered, serving menial janitorial jobs and errands despite that these enlisted personnel are receiving salaries comparable to public school teachers and public nurses. In some isolated cases, AFP officers on trial for some administrative cases under the Unified Military Justice System (Articles of War) have been on floating (inactive) status for years and continue to receive basic salary and allowances but when cases are resolved, these officers are already eligible to receive military pension.

Probably it’s time for the AFP (and other uniformed services) to rationalize and revisit the original purpose of the various military (and police) specialization and organization in order to come up with a responsive armed force attune to changes and in response to the ballooning military and other uniformed pension services. By then, the AFP and other uniformed services can have a better argument on MUP pension anchored on sound economic principles and rationality, rather than through emotions and self-preservation.

Proscoro Ervin Mundo, Ph.D.,
faculty of management and development studies,
University of the Philippines Open University