Various netizens from all walks of life expressed anger at the decision of President Aquino for vetoing a bill seeking to grant P2,000 across-the-board increase in pensions that the Social Security System gives out to retirees.
The decision of the President could also hurt not only the candidacy of the former DILG Secretary Mar Roxas but also the entire ticket of the administration party’s Liberal Party. Some netizens noted that they want to abandon the candidates under the Liberal Party in the coming 2016 polls.
Facebook and other social media sites become the avenue for netizens to express their anger with the President’s decision to veto the proposed bill filed by senatorial candidate Nelly Colmenares of Bayan Muna.
Although President Aquino angered some netizens with his decision not to approved the SSS Pension increase, there are also netizens who lauded the President’s decision because they noted that the President was just thinking for the greater good of SSS members.
One of the most interesting comments among the netizens who shared their views was aired by a certain Facebook user Hector who noted that the government should look into the higher disparity of the SSS contributions and the GSIS contributions.
According to Facebook user Hector, the SSS should upgrade the contribution of SSS members to match those of the GSIS members. At the said rate, there would have been no problem of SSS pensioners getting measly amounts of pensions.
Paasa (Raising false hopes).
This in a nutshell sums up and aptly describes the effects of President Aquino’s recent veto of the bill proposing a P2,000 across-the-board increase for SSS pensioners.
The presidential veto has brought to the fore the serious lapse in the liaison and advisory works of both the Presidential Legislative Liaison Office (PLLO) and the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC). For how could such a bill have p(removed)ed both houses of Congress without the usual Completed Staff Work (CSW) – or whatever term they may wish to call it — that would fairly apprise the President and the members of the legislature as well about the possible impacts – social, political, economic, fiscal, etc. – of key legislative measures under consideration by Congress?
With such a CSW, the President is given a blow-by-blow account of the actions in Congress and is promptly advised by his subordinates relative to the appropriate decision or course of action to take on certain pending bills and avert, where proper, their being elevated to the portals of Malacañang for final decision by using his innate power of suasion over his allies in Congress. The timely information given the Chief Executive on crucial bills would spare him from being put “on the spot,” so to speak, and effectively shun a situation where members of Congress advocating a bill would earn “pogi points” and gain undeserved political mileage at the expense of an unwary President. That, too, would save Congress hundreds of deliberation hours and, of course, millions of people’s money!
We thought that the presidential staff learned their lessons well from the 15th Congress (2010-2013) during which period the President vetoed nearly 80 bills submitted to him for signature. Such number of rejections speaks of the kind of coordination and linkage which the executive and the legislature had then. Proposed measures which are unlikely or have a very remote chance of being approved by the President owing to certain foreseeable considerations should, following an extensive research and CSW, be “nipped in the bud” and “dumped outright” at the legislative mill.
While the SSS bill may be the first bill ever vetoed by the President among those p(removed)ed by the current 16th Congress (2013-2016), still the recurrence of the old and unpalatable practice by Congress of p(removed)ing the buck and eventually shifting the burden to the Office of the President at crunch time as well as the oft-laid-back approach and slip-shod treatment by the President’s men of legislative proposals which is akin to a “let’s-just-cross-the-bridge-when-we-get-there” attitude is something to be abhorred and despised.
That the poor old SSS pensioners were made to believe that the bill would merit nothing less than the approval of their President, it having been given the imprimatur by hundreds of their representatives in Congress, made its rejection all the more painful and difficult to accept by those would-be beneficiaries. The two branches of government should by now have learned their lessons from this sad chapter and should forthwith become more prudent and circumspect in ensuring that what is finally delivered to their constituents are “true and concrete services” and not “paasa lang” or mere “hollow promises.”
ATTY. ALVIN T. CLARIDADES
PUP College of Law
Sta. Mesa, Manila