General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (RA 9401)) and A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC

June 7, 2011

EN BANC

A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated June 7, 2011, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC (In Re: General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Republic Act No. 9401)) and A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC (In Re: Re Query on the Effect of the 10% Salary Increase Under Executive Order No. 611 on the SAJ of Justices, Judges and Court Officials with Equivalent Rank of CA Justices or RTC Judges). — For consideration of the Court are the following:

(a) Letter dated June 4, 2010 of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, a Member of this Court, addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, relative to the Court's Resolution dated May 4, 2010 directing the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to comply with the Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution dated October 27, 2009 issued in the present consolidated administrative matters, respectfully requesting that appropriate action be taken to direct the DBM to expedite the compliance with the Court's directive per Resolution dated May 4, 2010 and, accordingly, the implementation of the Court's Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution dated October 27, 2009;

(b) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated April 6, 2011 between the DBM, represented by DBM Secretary Florencio B. Abad, and herein movants, Philippine Judges Association (PJA), Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (METCJAP), Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. (PTJLI), and Retired Judges Association of the Philippines (RJAP), duly represented by the presidents of their respective association of Judges, namely, Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr., Judge Jaime B. Santiago, Judge Josefina E. Siscar, and Judge Basilio R. Ramiscal, providing for the following: restoration of the 100% Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ); funding and payment of salary adjustment under the Salary Standardization Law (SSL); funding and payment of the 13th month pay; payment of SAJ; and SAJ claim; and CDISAc

(c) Comment dated May 26, 2011 of Atty. Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief, Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO), relative to the Resolution dated November 30, 2010 which directed the FMBO Chief to submit her Comment on Resolution No. 2, Series of 2010, of movant Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. (PTJLI), requesting the Chief Justice to facilitate the release of salary differentials for Judges in consonance with Executive Order (E.O.) No. 811, effective July 1, 2009, and the release of the SAJ differentials also for Judges in line with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9227 reverting back to 100% the said SAJ, effective June 1, 2007, and the aforesaid MOA dated April 6, 2011.

The antecedents are as follows:

R.A. No. 9227, 1 otherwise known as the SAJ Law, became effective on November 11, 2003. To implement the law, on December 1, 2003, then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. authorized the creation of the Special Allowance for Justices and Judges Fund (SAJJ Fund), which later became known as the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJ Fund).

On March 14, 2007, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued E.O. No. 611, 2 effective July 1, 2007, authorizing the first of the salary increases at the rate of ten percent (10%) of the basic monthly salary (BMS), as of June 30, 2007, of civilian government personnel, pursuant to P.D. No. 1597, 3 R.A. No. 6758, 4 as amended by Joint Resolution No. 1 of the Senate and House of Representatives, dated March 7, 1994, and R.A. No. 9336. 5

On March 28, 2008, the Court (in A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC), 6 acting on the query of the FMBO Chief, in her Memoranda dated June 26, 2007, July 4, 2007, and November 20, 2007, regarding the effect of the said 10% salary increase on the monthly SAJ, in relation to Section 6 of R.A. No. 9227, issued a Resolution, stating that the SAJ is to be considered as an advance implementation of any subsequent increase in salary rates, including the 10% increase in basic salary under E.O. No. 611. The said Resolution directed the FMBO Chief (1) to deduct 10% from the monthly SAJ of incumbent Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice [or] RTC Judge, corresponding to the 10% increase in their basic salary as authorized under E.O. No. 611; and (2) to source the 10% salary increase from the SAJ Fund. 7

On May 1, 2008, then President Arroyo issued E.O. No. 719, 8 effective July 1, 2008, directing the implementation of the 10% increase over the basic monthly salary as of June 30, 2008 of civilian personnel whose positions are covered by the Compensation and Position Classification System under R.A. No. 6758, as amended.

On September 16, 2008, the Court (in A.M. No. 08-9-1-SC), 9 acting on the Memoranda dated August 19, 2008 and September 3, 2008 of the FMBO Chief, relative to the second 10% salary increase, issued a Resolution, authorizing the FMBO Chief (1) to implement the 10% salary increase authorized under E.O. No. 719 for officials and employees of the Supreme Court and lower courts and the [Presidential Electoral Tribunal] (PET), effective July 1, 2008; (2) to deduct the amount corresponding to the aforesaid 10% salary increase authorized under E.O. No. 719 from the monthly SAJ of Justices, Judges and court officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge; and (3) to effect the necessary adjustments in the monthly pensions, including the SAJ component, of retired Justices to reflect the aforesaid 10% salary increase authorized under E.O. No. 719 and the corresponding deduction from the monthly SAJ component.

As a consequence of the Court's Resolutions dated March 28, 2008 (in A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC) and September 16, 2008 (in A.M. No. 08-9-1-SC), the two 10% salary increases, authorized under E.O. Nos. 611 and 719, were implemented by deducting a corresponding amount from the monthly SAJ of Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA justice or RTC judge.

On June 17, 2009, the Senate and House of Representatives approved Joint Resolution No. 4 10 which provides for a modified salary schedule for civilian personnel to be implemented in four (4) tranches, under the Salary Standardization Law III (SSL 3) namely, first tranche — E.O. No. 811 (effective July 1, 2009); second tranche — E.O. No. 900 (effective June 24, 2010); third tranche — E.O. No. 40 (effective June 1, 2011); and fourth tranche — E.O. to be issued next year.

On the same day, June 17, 2009, then President Arroyo issued E.O. No. 811, 11 effective July 1, 2009, prescribing the first trancheof the modified salary schedule of civilian personnel and base pay schedule of military and uniformed personnel in the government, and directing the review and modification of the Position Classification System, pursuant to the said Joint Resolution No. 4.

The Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) issued by the DBM on July 16, 2009 to cover incremental personal services for the implementation of the first tranche salary increase under E.O. No. 811 for the period from July to December, 2009 quoted Section 6 of R.A. No. 9227 and, further, provided that the "release does not cover the implementation of the first tranche compensation adjustment under E.O. No. 811, dated June 17, 2009, for Justices and Judges, and all other positions with the equivalent rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals or Judge of the Regional Trial Court in the Judiciary similar to the two (2) prior 10% salary increases granted under E.O. No. 611 dated March 14, 2007 and E.O. No. 719 dated May 1, 2008." cDTSHE

On August 27, 2009, the incumbent Presiding Judges of the RTCs of Iloilo City, filed a Petition for Prohibition 12 dated July 13, 2009, seeking the following reliefs, to wit: (1) to restrain therein respondent FMBO Chief from sourcing the first tranche of the salary increase under E.O. No. 811 from the SAJ being availed of by the petitioners; (2) to enjoin respondents from implementing E.O. No. 811 and Joint Resolution No. 4, S. 2009 where such implementation would result in the further reduction of the SAJ; and (3) to declare as inoperative and unenforceable the provision of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9227, and to direct that whatever salary increase is due the petitioners, as well as the Justices and other Judges similarly situated, the same shall be sourced from the General Appropriations Act.

In its Supplement to Petition dated August 3, 2009, therein petitioner PJA averred that although the RTC Judges, CA Justices, and other court officials with equivalent ranks are the direct beneficiaries of R.A. No. 9227 (SAJ Law), all other court personnel not covered by the SAJ Law may benefit therefrom if there is a surplus after payment of the SAJ of RTC Judges and CA Justices; that once their salary increases have reached 100% of their allowance under the SAJ Law, they would no longer be entitled to SAJ because their entire SAJ would then have been completely converted into salary; and that the strict application of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9227 would result in a diminution of benefits that they are entitled to receive.

On October 27, 2009, before the first tranche of the modified salary schedule based on the SSL 3 could be implemented, the Court, in A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC, acting on the Memorandum dated April 27, 2007 of the FMBO Chief and the Reports dated July 20, 2007 and November 21, 2008 of the Office of the Chief Attorney, issued a Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution in the present consolidated administrative matters, A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC and A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, enjoining the DBM from implementing in A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC, the provision of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9227 insofar as the same is applied to the 10% salary increases under E.O. 611 as of July 1, 2007, E.O. No. 719 as of July 1, 2008, and E.O. No. 811 as of July 1, 2009, in relation to Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, Series of 2009, effective June 17, 2009, of the Justices, Judges and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of a Justice of the CA or Judge of the RTC, pertaining to the corresponding deduction on their monthly SAJ; and in A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC, paragraph 2 (a) of the provisions on Pension and Gratuity Fund for R.A. No. 9401 (The Fiscal Year 2007 General Appropriations Act) and R.A. No. 9498 (The Fiscal Year 2008 General Appropriations Act), adding a third expenditure item to the Special Allowance for Justices and Judges (SAJJ) Fund (Special Allowance Component), which contravenes Section 3 of R.A. No. 9227 that creates only two exclusive expenditure items for the said Fund, namely, the special allowance for justices, judges and judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge and the additional allowance of court personnel. 

On May 4, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution in the aforesaid consolidated administrative matters, A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC and A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC, directing the DBM to comply with the Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution of October 27, 2009 by: (1) issuing the necessary Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) and the corresponding Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) to cover funding requirements for the SAJ component of the retirement gratuity and terminal leave benefits of retired Justices and Judges previously denied funding and, thus, providing the necessary funding for present and future claims for the SAJ component of the retirement gratuity and terminal leave benefits and the monthly annuities of retired Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge; and (2) issuing the necessary SARO and the corresponding NCA to cover funding requirements for the salary increases authorized under E.O. Nos. 611, 719, and 811 of the Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge for the period from July 1, 2007 to March 31, 2010, and releasing the necessary funding corresponding to their salary increases authorized under the said E.O. Nos. 611, 719, and 811, beginning April 2010 and every month thereafter.

Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, a Member of this Court, in a letter dated June 4, 2010, addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, relative to the said Court's Resolution dated May 4, 2010, directing the DBM to comply with the Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution dated October 27, 2009 issued in the present administrative matters, respectfully requests that appropriate action be taken to direct the DBM to expedite the compliance with the Court's directive per Resolution dated May 4, 2010 and, accordingly, the implementation of the Court's Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution dated October 27, 2009.

On June 23, 2010, then President Arroyo issued E.O. No. 900, 13 effective June 24, 2010, prescribing the second tranche of the modified salary schedule based on SSL 3.

On March 8, 2011, the Court, upon the recommendation of the FMBO Chief, in her Report dated March 3, 2011, held in abeyance the action on the request of movant PTJLI for Chief Justice Corona to facilitate the release of salary differentials for Judges in consonance with E.O. No. 811, effective July 1, 2009, and the release of the SAJ differentials for judges in line with R.A. No. 9227 reverting back to 100% the said SAJ, effective June 1, 2007, pending submission of the draft MOA by the DBM on the funding of the salary increases of Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge.

On April 6, 2011, the DBM and herein movants entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), with the following provisions, to wit:

Section 1. Restoration of the 100% SAJ. — The various Judges' Associations shall appeal to and urge the SC to restore to the SAJ the amount corresponding to 20% of the basic salary which was deducted pursuant to EO 611 and 719 in 2007 and 2008, respectively, without prejudice to the final resolution of the SC in AM No. 07-8-3-SC and AM No. 07-5-1-SC dated October 27, 2009 and May 4, 2010, respectively. As in the previous years, the SAJ shall continue to be tax free;

Section 2. Funding and Payment of Salary Adjustment under the SSL. — The salary rate of Judges, Justices and retired Judges of all levels pursuant to the Joint Resolution No. 4 (SSL 3), including their respective step increments, shall be granted to the members of the Judiciary, incumbent and retired, to be funded by the National Government, taking into consideration the SAJ component. (See attached Annexes A & B) HaAISC

Section 3. Funding and Payment of the 13th Month Pay. — The 13th month pay of the Judges shall be based on the SSL rate subject to the respective allotments pertaining to the DBM and the SAJ component as provided in Section 2, hereof.

Section 4. Payment of SAJ. — The SAJ shall continue to be separate and distinct from the basic salary under the SSL 3. Payment of the SAJ shall be shouldered by the SC sourced from the Funding Sources under Section 3 of the SAJ Law.

Section 5. SAJ Claim. — Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as a waiver of the Judges' right to claim the salary differential pertaining to the 20% increase, nor be considered as an abandonment of their right pursuant to the SC Resolution dated 27 October 2009 and 4 May 2010 ordering the DBM to provide and release the necessary funding corresponding to the salary increases authorized under EO 611, 719 and 811 of Judiciary officials. Taking into consideration the stand of the National Government that Section 6 of RA 9227 be complied with, it is expressly agreed that any additional SAJ differential being claimed by the judges as a result of the Status Quo Ante Order dated 27 October 2009 and 4 May 2010 shall be resolved by the parties in separate discussions; Provided, further, that in the implementation of this Memorandum [of] Agreement, all retired Judges of all levels are deemed included in accordance with Republic Act No. 9946.

On April 29, 2011, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III issued E.O. No. 40, 14 effective June 1, 2011, prescribing the third tranche of the modified salary schedule based on the SSL 3. aSCHcA

With the signed MOA submitted to the Court for its evaluation and approval, the FMBO Chief pointed out that herein movants did not represent the Court when they entered into a MOA with the DBM and, thus, have no authority to commit the SAJ Fund as a source of salary increases, the SAJ or any other allowance as embodied in the MOA. The FMBO Chief commented that since the Chief Justice administers the SAJ Fund through the FMBO, at most, herein movants may only plead with the Court to accept the terms of the MOA, and to take appropriate action in order to address the appeal for the implementation of their salary increases without losing their SAJ. Under the MOA, the DBM shall, in effect, continue to fund the basic monthly salary (BMS), as of June 30, 2007, and will fund: (1) effective June 24, 2010, the deficiency in the salary increase for the second tranche under the modified salary schedule of the SSL 3, pursuant to the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4 and E.O. No. 900, taking into consideration the SAJ component; and (2) the subsequent salary increases for the third tranche under the modified salary schedule of the SSL 3 in June 1, 2011 and the fourth tranche in 2012, also net of SAJ.

In her Comment, the FMBO Chief made the following observation with regard to the continuance of the grant of the SAJ:

We, however, also observe the acquiescence of the DBM to the continued grant of the SAJ to incumbent Justices, Judges and [Judiciary] officials with equivalent rank [of a CA Justice or RTC Judge] as embodied in Section 4 of the subject MOA which specifically states that (t)he SAJ shall continue to be separate and distinct from the basic salary under the SSL 3," and further provides that such SAJ shall be shouldered by the Supreme Court from the SAJ Fund. Even as the DBM maintains its position that the SAJ is an advance implementation of subsequent salary increases pursuant to Section 6, R.A. [No.] 9227 as can be gleaned from Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the MOA, it, nonetheless, does not oppose the continued grant of the monthly SAJ to the Judges as it agreed to such grant under the subject MOA provided that the Supreme Court shoulders the payment of the SAJ to be sourced from the SAJ fund. The DBM apparently recognizes the plight of the Judges and the authority of the Supreme Court as final interpreter of the law as the final whereas clause states that "it is necessary that equity in judges' pay is achieved pursuant to law and the resolutions of the SC." With its act of entering into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Judges associations with no less than the President of the Republic present at its signing, it would seem that the DBM seeks to harmonize its own interpretation of the law with the resolutions of the Supreme Court on the matter, with the end view of addressing the growing unrest among the members of the bench due to the delay in the implementation of their salary increases under the SSL 3.

Prescinding from the foregoing disquisition, the Court notes the MOA, dated April 6, 2011, entered into between the DBM and herein movants, and finds the recommendation of the FMBO Chief, in her Comment dated May 26, 2011, to be well-taken with modification.

In this regard, the Court rules that the continuation of the grant of the SAJ is in order, and that the payment of the monthly SAJ be restored at the rate of 100% as of June 30, 2007, effective June 24, 2010, since this is the date of effectivity of the second tranche of the SSL 3 under E.O. No. 900 when the SAJ of Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge began to be fully converted to basic monthly salary (BMS). 15 In fact, the Executive Department, through the DBM, takes into consideration the plight of Judges and sees the need for the continuance of the grant of SAJ as set forth in the last "Whereas Clause," stating that "it is necessary that equity in Judges' pay is achieved pursuant to law and the resolution of the [Supreme Court] (SC)." Further, as to the payment of the SAJ, Section 4 of the MOA provides that "the SAJ shall continue to be separate and distinct from the basic salary under the SSL 3 and payment of the SAJ shall be shouldered by the SC, soured from the Funding Sources under Section 3 of the SAJ Law." This means that the Executive Department recognizes that the SAJ shall continue after that portion of the SAJ shall have been incorporated in the basic pay and, consequently, the Court shall continue to pay the SAJ of Justices, Judges, and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge as long as the same is sourced from the SAJ Fund, pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9227.  

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court, hereby RESOLVES:

1. In A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC:

a. To NOTE the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated April 6, 2011, entered into between the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), represented by DBM Secretary Florencio B. Abad, and movants Philippine Judges Association (PJA), Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (METCJAP), Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. (PTJLI), and the Retired Judges Association of the Philippines (RJAP), duly represented by the presidents of their respective association of Judges, namely, Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr., Judge Jaime B. Santiago, Judge Josefina E. Siscar, and Judge Basilio R. Ramiscal, and to ADOPT AND APPROVE WITH MODIFICATION the recommendation in the Comment dated May 26, 2011 of the FMBO Chief;

b. To LIFT AND SET ASIDE the Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution, dated October 27, 2009, insofar as it enjoins the DBM from implementing the provision of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9227 as the same is applied to the ten percent (10%) salary increases under Executive Order (E.O.) Nos. 611 and 719 and the salary increase under the first tranche of the Salary Standardization Law III (SSL 3) under E.O. No. 811 of the Justices, Judges and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of a Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA) or Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), pertaining to the corresponding deduction of their monthly Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ);

c. To SET ASIDE the Resolution, dated May 4, 2010, of this Court insofar as it directs the DBM to issue the necessary Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) and the correspondening ^* Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) to cover funding requirements for the salary increases authorized under E.O. Nos. 611, 719, and 811 of the Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge for the period from July 1, 2007 to March 31, 2010, and releasing the necessary funding corresponding to their salary increases authorized under the said E.O. Nos. 611, 719, and 811, beginning April 2010 and every month thereafter;

d. To NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the letter dated June 4, 2010 of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, a Member of this Court, addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, relative to the Court's Resolution dated May 4, 2010, directing the DBM to comply with the Status Quo Ante Order and Resolution dated October 27, 2009 issued in the present consolidated administrative matters; IDSETA

e. To ORDER that the salary increases authorized under E.O. Nos. 611, 719, 811, and 900 and subsequent issuances pursuant to the SSL 3, corresponding to the amount of the SAJ of Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge, be sourced from the SAJ fund;

f. To DIRECT the DBM to immediately issue the corresponding NCA for SARO No. SARO-BMB-D-11-0001782 to cover the funding requirements for the deficiency in the salary increase under the second tranche of the SSL 3, effective June 24, 2010, and the third tranche, effective June 1, 2011, of Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge, and to issue the SARO and the corresponding NCA for the future salary increase under the fourth tranche of the SSL 3, both taking into consideration the SAJ component in accordance with Section 6 of R.A. No. 9227; and

g. To DIRECT and AUTHORIZE the Court Administrator, as official representative of the Legislative-Executive Relations Committee (LERCOM), to make representations with the Congress of the Philippines for the purpose of securing legislation for the grant of an allowance to Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with judicial ranking, as well as to other Judiciary officials and personnel, not dependent on the collections of the Judiciary, but to be funded by the National Government; and

2. In A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC:

a. To ORDER that the SAJ component of the retirement gratuity and terminal leave benefits and pensions of retired Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge shall continue to be sourced from the Pension and Gratuity Fund; and

b. To DIRECT the DBM to issue the necessary SARO and the corresponding NCA to cover the funding requirements for the SAJ component of the retirement benefits and pensions of retired Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge.

Further, the Court RESOLVES:

1. To DIRECT the FMBO Chief to RELEASE the differentials for the salary increases authorized under E.O. Nos. 811 and 900 corresponding to the SAJ component of the basic monthly salary (BMS) of Justices, Judges, and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge, effective June 24, 2010, chargeable against the SAJ fund and subject to availability of funds;

2. To DIRECT the FMBO Chief to IMPLEMENT the payment of the monthly SAJ, effective June 24, 2010, at the rate of 100% as of June 30, 2007 and to RELEASE the differentials corresponding to the two (2) ten percent (10%) salary increases authorized under E.O. Nos. 611 and 719 previously deducted from the monthly SAJ of Justices, Judges and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of a CA Justice or RTC Judge, beginning June 24, 2010, chargeable against the SAJ Fund and subject to availability of funds; and

3.To ORDER that Judiciary officials and personnel, who are not direct beneficiaries under R.A. No. 9227, may continue to receive the additional allowance, in case of available surplus in the SAJ Fund." (adv156)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

Footnotes

1.An Act Granting Additional Compensation in the Form of Special Allowances for Justices, Judges and All Other Positions in the Judiciary with the Equivalent Rank of Justices of the Court of Appeals and Judges of the Regional Trial Court, and for Other Purposes.

2.Authorizing Compensation Adjustments to Government Personnel.

3.Further Rationalizing the System of Compensation and Position Classification in the National Government.

4.Compensation and Position Classification Act of l989.

5.The Fiscal Year 2005 General Appropriations Act.

6.Re: Query on the Effect of the 10% Salary Increase Under Executive Order No. 611 on the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) of Justices, Judges and Court Officials with Equivalent Rank of Court of Appeals Justices or Regional Trial Court Judges, 550 SCRA 1.

7. Id. at 14-15.

8.Compensation Adjustments for Government Personnel.

9.Re: Request for Authority to Implement the 10% Salary Increase Under Executive Order No. 719 for Supreme Court and Lower Courts and PET Officials and Employees.

10.Joint Resolution Authorizing the President of the Philippines to Modify the Compensation and Position Classification System of Civilian Personnel and the Base Pay Schedule of Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, and for Other Purposes.

11.Adopting the First Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule of Civilian Personnel and Base Pay Schedule of Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, as well as the Modified Position Classification System Pursuant to Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, S. 2009.

12.The Regional Trial Court Judges of Iloilo City v. Ms. Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, in her capacity as Chief of Office, Fiscal Management and Budget Office, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Manila, and the Department of Budget and Management, Malacañang, Manila.

13.Implementation of the Second Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule for Civilian Personnel and Base Pay Schedule for Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government.

14.Implementation of the Third Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule for Civilian Personnel and Base Pay Schedule for Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government.

15.The SAJ of an RTC Judge and Judiciary officials with the equivalent rank of an RTC Judge was fully converted to the BMS on June 24, 2010, upon implementation of the second tranche of the SSL 3 under E.O. 900. The SAJ of Associate Justices of the CA, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals (Salary Grade (SG 30), Judges and Judiciary officials with judicial rank from SGs 26 to 28, namely, Judges of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Municipal Trial Court (MTC), and Shari'ah Circuit Court (SG 26); Judges of Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and Shari'ah District Court (SG 27); and Judges of Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC (SG 28) and Judiciary officials with the same ranks (SGs 26 to 28) was fully converted to the BMS on June 1, 2011, upon implementation of the third tranche of the SSL 3 under E.O. No. 40. The SAJ of the Chief Justice (SG 32), Associate Justices of the SC and Presiding Justices of the CA, Sandiganbayan, and CTA (SG 31) would be fully converted to BMS in 2012, upon implementation of the fourth tranche of the SSL 3.