Retiree heartened by Code provision

The relative freedom of information enjoyed under the P-Noy administration’s good governance and the advent of the Internet have enabled me to access crucial information that guides me to take adaptive moves in doing protracted but fruitful transactions with the Government Service Insurance System. But even in this present high-tech era, there are pieces of information on public interest that the government hides from the people, which makes my GSIS retirement case “One asap reason for FOI bill’s enactment” (Inquirer, 10/12/12). The facts of the case are as follows:

1. A GSIS letter dated Feb. 16, 1987, informed me that based on my 17 years of government service, my application for retirement under Presidential Decree 1146 with pension for life was approved and payment would start in 2009 as indicated in the GSIS voucher.

1. But then I subsequently got a letter dated Feb. 26, 1987, withdrawing the previously approved application, and at the same time approving my retirement under Republic Act 1616 with “Take All” benefits (refund of personal share plus interest compounded monthly and payment of government share). In  March 1987, I received the refund of my personal share only in the amount of P14,584.31 (indicated in the GSIS check voucher).

1. I refiled my application under PD 1146 in November 2012. GSIS later informed me through a letter dated Dec. 27, 2012, that I had already been refunded my personal share under RA 1616, hence my request for retirement benefit under PD 1146 could not be given due course.

1. Given my predicament, I find comfort in knowing that the Civil Code, specifically Article 3, states: “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.” There were lapses in complying with the retirement law: (a) the major lapse was when GSIS committed an oversight by allowing me to retire under RA 1616 even if it was not applicable to me having less than 20 years of government service; and (b) the minor lapse was when, without reservation, I accepted the payment as retirement benefits. These lapses may be resolved by making corrective measure on GSIS’ oversight.

1. Hence, I submitted to GSIS a letter of appeal dated Jan. 28, 2013, invoking the retirement under PD 1146 based on that GSIS oversight and the precedent case of Nane C. Bacani, whose retirement in 1985 at the age of 57, after 33 years of government service, was approved under RA 1616 (with refund of premium with interest) and, upon her appeal, under PD 1146 in 2010. Thus, I was informed through a letter dated Feb. 21, 2013, by the NCR Department Operations Group that my appeal will be elevated to the Committee on Claims, which I understand will then forward the result to the Board of Trustees for final action.

Lastly, I hope that GSIS, which is mandated to improve the social security and insurance benefits of retirees, will act on my case favorably.

 —EDMUNDO ENDEREZ,

[email protected]