TIME and again, the Public Attorney’s Office has maintained its position that any legal opinion from the Department of Justice was no longer necessary as sought by the Department of Budget and Management over parity in ranks and salaries for its public attorneys and staff.
PAO Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta stressed that her agency’s long-delayed DBM request didn’t need any DOJ conformity because the former is an independent and autonomous office since it’s established by Republic Act 9406 and “it’s only attached to DOJ for purposes of policy and program coordination only.”
She issued the statement in reaction to a latest letter from the new DBM leadership asking the DOJ anew for its legal opinion.
“We believe that no resolution from the DOJ is forthcoming, considering that the matter has been pending for more than two years (at the time, now more than three years),” said the chief public attorney who added that she already had explained in writing to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. the PAO’s position.
In a letter to DBM Undersecretary Wilford Will Wong, Rueda-Acosta, Deputy Chief Ana Lisa Soriano and PAO-Metro Manila Director Revelyn Ramos-Dacpano said they’re also expecting that no resolution was also forthcoming from the DBM despite PAO’s assertion of its independence and autonomy from the DOJ.
Such inaction prevents the PAO from availing of the proper legal remedy; practically putting the matter in limbo, they lamented.
“In fact, the similar inordinate delay on the part of the DBM (more than three years) does not and shouldn’t deter the granting of the parity; especially since it had already been earlier sustained by the Supreme Court, Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals,” Soriano stressed.
Besides, the top PAO officials said it would be highly illogical for the DBM to claim inconsistent positions that public attorneys are qualified to retirement benefits under R.A. 10071 (National Prosecution Service Law) but they’re not entitled to the ranks and salaries under the same RA 10071 which is the present DBM position.
“Ultimately, it is the poor, underprivileged, and marginalized that will bear the burden of having less compensated, less motivated, and therefore, less efficient, lawyers – a reality inconsistent with the principle of social justice and violation of the constitutional guarantee of adequate legal assistance to the poor,” Rueda-Acosta said.
