|
It is
curious how the administrator of the Social Security
System (SSS), just after being accorded Cabinet rank
under recently issued Administrative Order 232, is
opting to resign from her office.
This
paper reported Tuesday that top-caliber accountant
Corazon de la Paz-Bernardo is leaving SSS very soon,
with controversial Senate witness Romulo Neri as her
likely replacement. Her resignation was reportedly filed
on June 18, seemingly preceding AO 232, citing health
reasons and a desire to spend more time with the family.
Under AO
232, the “existing programs of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development [DSWD], the Department of Health
[DOH], the Government Service Insurance System [GSIS],
the SSS and other agencies dealing with social-welfare
shall be clustered together into a national
social-welfare program that directly addresses the
impact of the adverse global environment.” Also, the
national social-welfare program “shall be headed by the
administrator of the SSS, who shall be granted Cabinet
rank.”
Obviously, AOs are not drafted in a day, and that 232
must have been already in the works in early June. Thus,
one cannot help but speculate that the de la Paz
resignation is tied in with it. Perhaps de la Paz’s
resignation was prompted by the order—either she doesn’t
agree with it, or was asked to give way so that Neri
could be named to the top SSS post.
As
things are playing out, there are several curious angles
developing:
•
Consolidating all national social welfare programs may
mean consolidating disbursement control over all funds
dedicated to such programs, including billions of pesos
in subsidies for the poor;
•
Consolidation also means putting all that money in the
control of a “trusted” Cabinet member, thus the talk of
“recycling” Neri, and all this just 23 months before a
presidential election; and,
•
Putting Neri in charge of the social-welfare programs
seems to pit him directly against Albay Gov. Joey
Salceda, the President’s economic “adviser” and the
architect of her “Noah’s Ark” social-welfare program,
and rumor is that there is no love lost between the two.
Budget
Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr. told a news briefing
recently that the government allotted an estimated P45
billion for social-welfare programs. That’s a large sum
of money for an official like Neri to handle, if at all
he does go to SSS. Moreover, his appointment does not
seem to be the wisest option considering the national
broadband network/Zhong Xing Telecommunications
Equipment Co. Ltd. controversy hounding him, with
allegations of large-scale bribery and manipulation of
government policy for personal gain or benefit.
Meanwhile, Andaya also belied Salceda’s claim that the
President would seek a supplemental budget to increase
government subsidies by P316 billion over a three-year
period, claiming that the government was beset by
problems in absorptive capacity. Perhaps that was the
Cabinet’s way, through Andaya, of sending a strong
signal to Salceda to know his place.
While it
may be difficult to question the wisdom of consolidating
all programs of various agencies related to social
welfare, there seems to be logic in keeping SSS separate
and distinct from agencies like the DSWD, DOH and the
GSIS.
SSS,
after all, administers private money—the pension and
social security contributions of private employees and
their employers, including self-employed
individuals/taxpayers. In that sense, while a government
agency, SSS handles private money. In fact, the
government does not have any business dictating SSS on
how to manage its money—much more direct the agency to
finance state-run social-welfare programs. In contrast,
GSIS and other government agencies all hold public
money. In the case of GSIS, the government and its
agencies all pay contributions to match those of
government workers.
And this
is the most worrying part. As the government tasks the
SSS chief to administer all its social-welfare programs,
and puts in a “trusted” Cabinet member as SSS
administrator, then it may not be long before SSS is
likewise tasked to “fund” or finance welfare programs.
Worse, SSS may even be later used as a conduit to get
funds out of the government for political use. And this,
obviously, puts at risk the pension money and
social-security contributions of millions of private
workers.
There
seems to be no significant gain for either SSS members
or the national government to have the SSS administrator
managing the government’s national-welfare programs. On
the contrary, there is great risk in such a move. It is
thus a wonder why the Palace insists on it.
Comments to matort@yahoo.com |
