CoA questions eight GSIS board members over P88-M pays in 2009

Eight members of the Board of Trustees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) might find themselves in the hot seat after the Commission on Audit (CoA) revealed they have received in excess of P11.018 million each in 2009.

CoA said the compensation “can be considered as excessive spending of the Pension Fund” because under Section 42 of the GSIS Act of 1997 (RA 8291), Board members were only entitled to P2,500 per diem when they attend board meetings and maximum monthly representation and transportation allowances of P10,000.

“The said provision made no mention of any other allowances/benefits to be received by the member of the board. It is explicit that the member of the board is entitled only to per diems and reasonable RATA. (But) the review of Personnel Services account for 2009 upon complete submission of the supporting payrolls on Sept. 16, 2010 showed that … P88.150 million, or an average of P11.018 million each, was expended for the compensation of the other eight members,” CoA said in its report.

Based on a breakdown of the board payroll, each member collected the following: per diem of P52,813; representation allowance of P1.44 million; transportation allowance of P480,000; mid-year financial assistance of P652,558; “BoT allowance” of P100,000; BoT representation allowance of P250,000; rice allowance (at P2,400 per month) of P28,800; clothing allowance of P2,000; productivity incentive bonus of P2.61 million; 15th month pay of P660,058; grocery bonus of P5,000; meal allowance of P300; provident fund of P3.53 million; car loan subsidy of P252,736; representation expenses (received by only six members) of P269,614; and medical allowances (received by five members) of P29,035.

The report added that one board member even charged P60,444 as reimbursement of  his representation expenses in connection with his travel to Australia on April 4 to 9, 2009, although travel allowance/per-diems and non-commutable representation expense in the total amount of $4,200 were claimed in connection with said travel.

However, the said member was not identified in the report.

CoA said it challenged payment of provident fund shares to members of the board but reported that GSIS Management defended its action that “per the opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), the board members are eligible for membership in the GSIS Provident Fund.”

Management also invoked OGCC Opinion No. 103 series of 2006 dated May 11, 2006, that it finds “no legal impediment to a Trustee being a member of the Provident Fund and being included in the appropriate compensation package for officers and employees of the GSIS.”

CoA took a contrary view saying members of the board are not organic personnel and have no fixed monthly compensation upon which the 45 percent employer and 5 percent employee’s contributions to the fund could be based.

CoA stressed that members of the board do not pay monthly premium contribution to the pension fund and are not even qualified members of the GSIS since they were only appointed to the post.

It also pointed out that there was no legal basis for using the salary of the president and general manager of GSIS as basis for computing the board members’ share in both the Provident Fund, the productivity and incentive bonus that amounted to P2.610 million each member and the 13th, 14th and 15th month pays.

On top of their allegedly bloated compensation package, CoA disclosed that four GSIS board members each received a total of P510,000 in per diem and representation allowances from the GSIS Family Bank.

Government auditors reported that GSIS even attempted to hide the pay being received for its board members.

“The payrolls covering the foregoing compensation packages especially those of the principal officers/executives and members of the board were made confidential sometime in 2008. Likewise, the report of salaries and allowances for 2009 containing compensation per board member at P3.2 million that was submitted in February 2010 was not also validated due to the withholding of the supporting payrolls,” the report added. –Charlie V. Manalo, Daily Tribune