ABOUT US

Profile of OGCC

A Brief History of the OGCC The principal law office of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) began as a small corporate counsel division under the Department of Justice (DOJ) on December 1, 1935. Its humble beginnings did not stymie the likes of the late former Senator and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Ramon Diokno from serving as head of the corporate counsel division.

When World War II broke out in 1941, the corporate counsel division was “abolished” to pave the way for creation of the Office of the Legal Adviser of GOCCs, under the Chairmanship of the Executive Commission. Shortly after the war, the corporate counsel division was re-organized, re-established and finally became the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) under Executive Order No. 94.

However, it was not until 1950 that the corporate counsel division formally came to be known and referred to as the OGCC, pursuant to Executive Order No. 392. Then, on January 5, 1951, Executive Order No. 400 transferred the undersized but promising unit under the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). This union was far from permanent. Not long after or on June 19, 1959, Republic Act (RA) No. 2327, generally referred to as the Charter of OGCC, was signed into law. Under the Charter of OGCC, it became a separate and distinct office from that of the OSG. RA No. 2327 would be the first in a series of legislations that would catapult the OGCC into the agency that it is now—principal law office of all GOCCs and overseer of all GOCC legal departments.

On June 2, 1963, Republic Act No. 3838 amended RA No. 2327. Apart from defining the powers of the GCC as statutory legal counsel of all GOCCs, it placed all GOCC legal departments under the control and supervision of the GCC and “discouraged” GOCCs from their long-standing practice of hiring private law practitioners without the written consent of the GCC.

To further strengthen and enlarge the composition of the Office, on August 4, 1969, Republic Act No. 6000 conferred the rank of Judges of Court of First Instance to the three (3) Assistant Government Corporate Counsels (AGCCs) at that time.

During the Marcos administration, the OGCC underwent further reorganizations, the most notable of which came with the issuance of Executive Order (EO) No. 878. Under EO No. 878, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos conferred upon the GCC the same rank, emoluments and privileges as that of the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Deputy Government Corporate Counsel (DGCC) the rank, emoluments and privileges equivalent to that of an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. Finally, seven (7) additional AGCCs were thrown in the original brew of three (3). Together, the ten (10) AGCCs were given the rank, emoluments and privileges of a Regional Trial Court Judge.

On July 25, 1987, former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987. This time there could be no quibbling with the intention behind EO No. 292 to revitalize the unique role of the OGCC as statutory legal counsel of all GOCCs, their subsidiaries, other corporate offspring and government acquired asset corporations.

The Mandate of the OGCC

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Teresita Panlilio-Luciano, the Supreme Court’s Second Division issued a surprisingly lengthy Resolution dated July 13, 2005 in order to clarify and set right what was described to be as “years of wrong practice” which never translated into a statutory right. Despite arguments grounded on convenience, the Supreme Court was unmoved and unwilling to set aside decades-old legal precept behind the Administrative Code of 1987’s categorical designation of the OGCC as the principal law office of GOCCs and the absolute requirement for the latter to exercise control and supervision over legal departments of GOCCs. According to the Court, “[t]he correlative advantage of the OGCC might not necessarily be derived from years of experience, but putatively from its vantage point as overseer of all legal processes emanating from and involving all GOCCs.”

Obligations

To serve as the principal law office

The Supreme Court held that the primary function of the OGCC is to serve as the principal law office of all GOCCs, their subsidiaries, other corporate offsprings and government acquired asset corporations. This has wide repercussions since this primary obligation spawns further specific obligations imposed upon lawyers. First, as distinguished from the “people’s tribune” character of the Office of the Solicitor General, it is the inescapable duty of the OGCC to represent GOCCs in cases for or against them, regardless of the nature of the cases and/or the strength of the legal position of the GOCC. As counsel, it is the duty of the OGCC to advocate the GOCC’s cause, leaving to the judge the duty to determine the merits of a case. Furthermore, as the primary law office, the OGCC is the recognized source of legal advice on major legal issues as well as day-to-day matters affecting GOCCs. Second, in performing their duties in OGCC, the lawyers of the OGCC are bound to observe the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics in relation to the corporations serviced by it, and the GOCCs as well as the taxpayers can demand the observance thereof by the OGCC lawyers. This means that, in connection with the primary responsibility of the OGCC for the handling of the legal affairs of the GOCCs, the OGCC is also responsible for the manner by which the legal affairs are handled. Third, a derivative obligation is imposed upon OGCC (and legal departments and external counsel) to recognize and come to terms with a hierarchy, insofar as the legal affairs of GOCCs are concerned, that places the OGCC above legal departments and external counsel of GOCCs. Thus, the OGCC is ultimately responsible for the legal advice given to management as well as the handling of cases for or against GOCCs, and should assert its authority in order to properly discharge this responsibility. (Administrative Code of 1987)

To control and supervise the legal department

The next obligation of the OGCC is corollary to the acknowledged benefits of having a legal department in a GOCC – the control and supervision of the GOCCs’ legal department. Indeed, the in-house lawyer is an important component of a GOCC since he is more focused on the particular GOCC’s legal affairs and is continually exposed to the various factual and legal issues faced by the corporation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court admits that “x x x there are permissible levels of delegation of authority the OGCC may cede to the legal department it supervises.” (Land Bank case, supra)

In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform such duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. (Mondano v. Silvosa)

However, as the Supreme Court pointed out, there are limits to the delegation of authority to the legal departments (and external counsel) and that any delegation of authority “cannot be construed in such a manner that would result in a surrender or abdication of powers by the office charged with its performance.” Thus, the engagement of external counsel has been limited to situations of manifest necessity, and the preconditions for which have been provided for by law. (Landbank Case, supra)

On August 27, 1998, President Joseph Estrada issued Memorandum Circular No. 9. Section 3 of which provides that “in exceptional cases, the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit shall first be secured before the hiring or employment of a private lawyer or law firm.”

To ensure harmony of legal positions

The OGCC is likewise mandated to ensure consistency and/or harmony of the legal positions of the various GOCCs. This invariably stems from the peculiar characteristic of in-house lawyering that makes in-house lawyers an important component of GOCCs. While admittedly they are more focused on the particular GOCC’s legal affairs and are continually exposed to the various factual and legal issues faced by the GOCC, it may also prove to be a handicap considering that it prevents them from harmonizing the legal positions of various GOCCs. Hence, the necessity for the OGCC to act as overseer and ensure consistency and/or harmony. Presumably, as the Supreme Court so eloquently puts it, “since the jurisdiction of the OGCC includes all GOCCs, its perspective is less myopic than that maintained by a particular legal department of a GOCC.” (supra)

This obligation to oversee is most readily manifested in the various legal positions of legal departments pertaining to the application of the Salary Standardization Law as it relates to the grant of benefits and allowances.

To arbitrate issues between GOCCs

To arbitrate issues that may arise between GOCCs is yet another obligation entrusted to the OGCC under its charter. When GOCCs bring to the OGCC certain issues for resolution, the OGCC is bound to conduct arbitration proceeding in order to facilitate the resolution of the issues. It is an administrative process designed to be speedy, inexpensive and necessary to unclog the dockets of regular courts. In Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corp. v. Alejandro M. Velez the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 242, which prescribes the procedure for the administrative settlement and adjudication of disputes, claims, and controversies between or among GOCCs. It further characterized the process as a necessary adjunct to the regular court processes, describing it “an alternative to, or a substitute for, traditional litigation in court with the added advantage of avoiding the delays, vexations and expense of court proceedings.” In fact, it cannot be gainsaid that the administrative procedure provided under PD No. 242 would “emasculate” the jurisdiction of courts since provisions of the Rules of Court make a pre-trial mandatory so that the parties to a suit may meet in conference to consider, among other matters, “the possibility of xxx a submission to arbitration.”

Rights

To issue rules and regulations

The power given to the OGCC to issue rules and regulations is a necessary adjunct to the power of supervision and control. Section 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987 expressly grants the OGCC the power to issue rules and regulations. However, this power must be properly characterized as a right rather than an obligation—GOCCs may not demand from the OGCC the exercise of this privilege. Rather, the OGCC retains the discretion to exercise this power from time to time as it may see fit.

To assess fees and to receive attorney’s fees adjudged in favor of GOCCs

The right of the OGCC to make assessments on GOCCs is expressly provided for in its Charter. This is a necessary part of the funding requirements of the OGCC. In fact, part of the reason for the Supreme Court’s unwillingness, in the Landbank case supra, to dispense with the participation of the OGCC in the legal affairs of GOCCs stems from the fact that the OGCC would eventually be deprived of its due funding as sourced from possible attorney’s fees that may rightly be awarded to it.

The Legal Dynamics of the OGCC and Legal Department

A necessary consequence of the OGCC’s function as the primary law office of GOCCs and its obligation to control and supervise legal departments is the hierarchy involving the OGCC and legal departments of the GOCCs. Placing the OGCC and GOCC legal departments on the same level will render nugatory certain mandatory obligations of the OGCC. This statutory set up has for its purpose the regulation of policies and consistency of legal positions. Again, in the Landbank case supra, the Supreme Court likened the legal relationship of the OGCC and GOCC legal departments to that of a junior associate with a senior partner. The Court was, of course, quick to add and reiterate that the seemingly correlative advantage of the OGCC is not necessarily derived from years of experience, but putatively from its vantage point as overseer of all legal process emanating from and involving all GOCCs.

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement has tremendous significance on the manner by which the OGCC is expected to perform its functions as well as the manner by which GOCCs can claim good faith reliance on advice regarding legal issues. Since the OGCC is the primary law office of the GOCCs and is bound to supervise and control the legal departments, then it appears that legal advice and documents that are not validated by the OGCC cannot be deemed to be authoritative and binding on the GOCCs. Moreover, reliance on advice regarding major legal issues cannot be deemed to be done in good faith if the same is not validated by the OGCC. Thus, management would be well-advised to seek the OGCC opinion and/or validation before reliance can be made on advice emanating elsewhere. Otherwise, the legal advice emanating from sources other than the OGCC cannot always serve as a legal cover in cases where projects or decisions prove to be wrong.

OGCC TODAY AND TOMORROW

Overview of the OGCC …

The OGCC then and today

Creation and Mandate. The OGCC was organized on 1 December 1935. From inception, the OGCC served as the statutory legal counsel and primary law office of government-owned and -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries and offsprings, government instrumentalities with corporate powers, government financial institutions, and government-acquired asset corporations (collectively referred to as “Government Corporations”). It is an attached agency of the Department of Justice.

Governing Laws. The Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), Presidential Decree No. 1415 (1978), Executive Order No. 878 (1983), Republic Act Nos. 6000 (1969), 3838 (1963) and 2327 (1959) are the laws and executive issuances governing the OGCC. These provide for the rank, compensation, privileges and special assignments of the legal complement of the OGCC, annual appropriations, special assessments and contributions from Government Corporations, and usages of funds of the OGCC.

Sectors and Teams. At present, the OGCC caters to the legal needs of close to 600 Government Corporations classified into the following sectors: (1) Gaming; (2) Economic Zones; (3) Information and Energy; (4) Environment and Water; (5) Banking; (6) Infrastructure and Transportation; (7) Agriculture and Trade; and (8) Housing. The OGCC is divided into teams corresponding to the aforesaid sectors with an additional team handling Special Concerns.

Core Functions. The core functions of the OGCC are to: (1) represent Government Corporations before the courts and quasi-judicial bodies; (2) render legal opinions; (3) review contracts; (4) investigate administrative cases against officials of Government Corporations; and (5) arbitrate disputes among Government Corporations. The OGCC has control and supervision over the legal departments of Government Corporations and has the authority to allow the hiring of private lawyers by the Government Corporations.

Workload. The OGCC is currently handling approximately 10,000 cases. On the average, 300 new cases are referred to the Office for representation a year. Annually, the OGCC issues some 400 opinions and reviews some 500 contracts.

Special Programs. Through the Institute for Public Corporate Governance (IPCG), the OGCC: (1) organizes mandatory continuing legal education modules for lawyers of the OGCC and Government Corporations; (2) advances corporate governance through seminars and adoption of a Code of Corporate Governance; (3) recognizes outstanding policy and legal researches affecting Government Corporations; and (4) publishes and compiles materials for use by Government Corporations. The OGCC is also involved in propagating Public-Private Partnerships through joint ventures and build-operate-transfer schemes, advancing Quality Management Systems, and assisting the Office of the President in disseminating information and policies to the Government Corporations.

Personnel. The qualifications, salary grades, privileges and benefits of the Government Corporate Counsel (“GCC”), the Deputy Government Corporate Counsel (“DGCC”), 10 Assistant Government Corporate Counsels (“AGCC”), and 45 Government Corporate Counsels (“GCA”) are aligned with members of the Judiciary from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to Judges of Municipal Trial Courts. While the DGCC, AGCCs and GCAs are career officials, the GCC occupies a co-terminus position. Currently, there are 57 lawyers and 69 administrative staff in the OGCC’s plantilla.

Annual Budget and Funding. The Annual Budget of the OGCC in 2007 was P53,761,000.00 and in 2008 P54,022,00.00. The proposed budget for 2009 is P59,381,000.00. In addition to the Annual Appropriation, the OGCC can, under: (1) Presidential Decree No. 1415, make special assessments on Government Corporations; (2) Executive Order No. 878, assign OGCC lawyers to act as corporate officers of Government Corporations, entitling them to additional compensation; and (3) Administrative Code of 1987, receive attorney’s fees adjudged in favor of Government Corporations.

The past 21 months saw…

The Unveiling of a New and Transformed OGCC

Primarily due to the leadership of the incumbent Government Corporate Counsel (GCC), Alberto C. Agra, the OGCC today is a more relevant, efficient, policy-oriented and professional organization. GCC Agra’s task was made easy by the institutional changes introduced by his predecessors, particularly Agnes VST Devanadera, now Solicitor General. The significant strides in the past year were made possible by the unwavering commitment of the men and women, lawyers and administrative personnel alike, of the OGCC.

When GCC Agra officially assumed his position on 05 March 2007, his goals were uncomplicated. He just wanted to help the current Administration and be of service to the OGCC partners – all the government-owned and controlled corporations and government instrumentalities. He simply wanted to serve. However, he did much more.

GCC Agra did not want the OGCC to be limited to just fulfilling its core mandate: representing the interests of its partners before the courts and administrative bodies, rendering opinions, reviewing contracts, hearing administrative cases, and arbitrating disputes. His dynamism and alternative approach to development paved the way for the establishment of the IPCG, an attached office of the OGCC dedicated to fulfilling President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s thrust for a strong Philippine Republic through the promotion of government accountability and transparency, and the pursuit of relevance in today’s global environment.

Public Recognition of Government Corporations and OGCC

The OGCC was instrumental in the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1613 (2008) declaring every first week of December as “Government Corporations and OGCC Week” simultaneous with the celebration of the founding anniversary of the OGCC. As part of the celebration, all Government Corporations will be assembled and shall have an audience with the President. During the 1st Assembly:

1. Initiatives and projects of government corporations that impact on national development, showcase partnership with the private sector and other government institutions, benefit the general public or specific sectors, or underscore quality and productivity management systems within the organization, will be publicly recognized under the 1st Gawad Pampublikong Korporasyon.

2. Outstanding policy and legal research papers of lawyers of the OGCC and Government Corporations will be acknowledged under the Policy and Research for Government Corporations (PReGC 3).

3. Presentations on recent developments in Government Corporations – Private Sector Joint Ventures, Corporate Governance and Quality Management Systems – will be made.

4. Past Government Corporate Counsels will be honored and recognized for their invaluable contribution to the OGCC and Government Corporations.

Advocacy of Alternative Dispute Resolution

1. Successfully arbitrated a 10-Billion Peso dispute between the National Power Corporation and the PNOC-Energy Development Corporation; 2. Currently arbitrating a restructuring and right-of-way dispute between the National Transmission Corporation and Canlubang Sugar Estates; and 3. Effectively conciliated controversies and differences between the Bases Conversion Development Authority and Land Bank of the Philippines on valuation of land; North Rail and National Food Authority on lease agreement for depot; Lung Center of the Philippines and National Kidney Transplant Institute on rights over real property. Active involvement in promoting Public-Private Sector Participation and Privatization of Government Corporations 1. Assisted in the drafting and caused the publication of the 2008 Guidelines on Joint Ventures between Government Corporations and the Private Sector issued by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) and Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB), and drafted the proposed Joint Venture Guidelines for Local Governments;

2. Conducted close to 50 seminars on the new Joint Venture Guidelines before Government Corporations, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the private sector;

3. Extensively participated in the drafting of the transaction documents for the successful fourth round of bidding for the privatization by way of concession of the National Transmission Corporation and power generation plants by the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM);

4. Participated in the privatization of PNOC-EC, and Mimosa Leisure Estates operated by Clark Development Corporation; and

5. Prepared and presented a paper on Public-Private Sector Participation on Water before all water districts. Increased revenues for the OGCC 1. Obtained the seed money/ capital for OGCC publication and research fund, and funding for the IPCG; 2. Created and implemented rules on the collection of Arbitration Fees; 3. Sustained the implementation of the foreclosure and reinsurance project with the Government Service Insurance System; 4. Institutionalized the collection of Special Assessments from partner Government Corporations; and 5. Executed several Memoranda of Agreement with selected Government Corporations for the undertaking of special projects.

Establishment of Good Corporate Governance in the Public Sector

1. Caused the preparation and publication of a Model Code of Corporate Governance for the Government Corporations;

2. Entered into a Partnership with the Department of Finance for the adoption of Model Code of Corporate Governance, Training and Monitoring Programs; and

3. In furtherance of relevant Presidential issuances, reminded Government Corporations to adopt Quality Management System Standards, pursue good Corporate Governance practices, contribute to pro-poor programs of the National Government, and allocate surplus funds for rice and food production.

Dynamic Leadership

Since his assumption of office in the OGCC, GCC Agra continues to be an Innovator, Change Manager, Regulator, Educator, Corporate Director/ Officer, Policy-Maker, Arbitrator and Conciliator, and Public-Private Sector Partnership Advocate.

GCC Agra served as trustee, corporate officer and observer to the Boards of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, Bases Conversion Development Authority, PSALM and the Philippine Ports Authority.

As part of his work as Trustee of the MWSS Governing Board, he assumed the position of OIC-Chief Regulator of the MWSS-Regulatory Office for 10 months. He successfully steered the MWSS-RO in the rate-rebasing exercise of the Manila Water Company, Inc. and started the same exercise for the Maynilad Water Services, Inc..

As head of agency, GCC Agra institutionalized reforms and programs for greater work efficiency, accountability, productivity and corporate social responsibility through the:

1. Adoption of Quality Management Systems with the assistance of the Development Academy of the Philippines and eventual ISO 9001:2000 certification of the OGCC;

2. Sustained implementation of the zero-backlog policy in opinion-drafting and contract review;

3. Manualization of office systems and procedures;

4. Adoption of a central docket system resulting in the centralization of case records and a centralized calendar of hearings and deadlines;

5. Codification, in electronic format, of all opinions issued and contracts reviewed by the OGCC from 1987 to 2007;

6. Institutionalization of regular training and education sessions for legal and administrative staff, and the adoption of a 1-year capability program;

7. Implementation of the Electronic National Government Accounting System (ENGAS);

8. Conduct of constant dialogues and consultations with heads and corporate officers of the state corporations;

9. Institutionalization of relationship with Government Corporations by executing Memoranda of Agreement;

10. Outreach programs with Gawad Kalinga, Bahay Tuluyan and Home for the Aged, and recently with Bureau of Corrections for juveniles and elderly; and

11. Launch of the employees’ Provident Fund and Sports Program.

Streamlined policies. As a policy-maker, GCC Agra spearheaded various moves to streamline policies directly affecting Government Corporations through the:

1. Drafting and adoption of Joint Venture guidelines with the NEDA and the GPPB;

2. Issuance of guidelines on election-related concerns confronting Government Corporations;

3. Issuance of Memorandum Circulars on OGCC-GOCC Legal Department relations and Supplementary rules on OGCC Arbitration;

4. Codification of OGCC opinions on procurement;

5. Conduct of a forum, attended by OGCC lawyers, relative to the following issues: GOCC employees’ Cost of Living Allowance; GOCCs’ liability on real property tax; and compromise agreements.

GCC Agra never turned his back on being an educator. He continues to teach at the Ateneo de Manila College of Law (Constitutional and Political Law Review, Public Corporations, Local Government Code, Election Law, Law on Public Officers) and is integrating academic pursuits in the development of the OGCC as an institution.

1. He sought renewal of the OGCC’s accreditation as a mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) provider. The OGCC has conducted two MCLE seminars attended by lawyers of the OGCC and partner Government Corporations.

2. He encouraged lawyers of the OGCC and Government Corporations to think “outside the box” and propose policies by launching the Policy and Research for Government Corporations (PReGC). Three competitions have been launched by OGCC where all the winning entries are published in a journal.

The proposed OGCC Charter …

The OGCC tomorrow

In 2008, GCC Agra proposed the adoption of a new OGCC Charter.

Senate Bill No. 2559, authored by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and House Bill No. 5037 introduced by Rep. Matias V. Defensor, Jr., seek to strengthen the OGCC by re-defining, expanding, strengthening, rationalizing and further professionalizing the OGCC as an organization, upgrading the employee benefits, and appropriating the necessary funds for the purpose.

The proposed Charter consolidates all laws and converts executive issuances relevant to the OGCC, as well the Implementing Rules and Regulations and internal policies issued by the previous GCCs, into one statute. Aside from referring to just one governing law, any perceived inconsistencies in the six laws and executive orders and internal and supplementary rules, whether express or implied, will now be settled as a consequence of the passage of the OGCC Charter.

The proposed legislation shall further strengthen the mandate of the OGCC. Under the proposal, all Government Corporations, without exception and notwithstanding provisions in existing charters of some Government Corporations, shall be under the jurisdiction of the OGCC. At present, not all Government Corporations are represented by OGCC. Further, the proposed Charter clarifies the jurisdiction of the OGCC to include the authority to: (1) issue opinions and advice involving all legal questions; (2) review contracts before they are executed; (3) conciliate, mediate, adjudicate and arbitrate all disputes or controversies between Government Corporations; and (4) exercise control and supervision over all legal departments of Government Corporations without exception.

The OGCC under the bills shall better serve its clientele and improve the delivery of legal services since the OGCC will be able to hire more lawyers and will have a bigger budget from regular appropriations and other sources. More lawyers and administrative personnel will be spread among the sectoral teams of the OGCC. Under the Charter, there will be 96 lawyers (a proposed addition of 39) and 132 non-legal staff (a proposed addition of 63). Thus, the OGCC will be able to absorb more cases, render more opinions and review more contracts within a shorter period of time, assume greater roles as corporate officers of Government Corporations, resolve more inter-Government Corporation disputes and controversies, and investigate more administrative cases.

Under the OGCC Charter, further professionalization of the OGCC can be expected. The GCC shall now have a fixed term of seven years, although this will only apply to appointments made after the passage of the Charter. The Charter proposes the increase in the ranks and salary grades of the legal staff, the lifting of age requirements while retaining the number of years required in practice, the increase in the benefits enjoyed by the legal and non-legal staff, and the allocation of a bigger budget by reason of the increase in personnel and upgrade of wage scales.

Greater public accountability of lawyers in the government service will be enhanced under the new Charter. With the increase in legal staff in the OGCC, Government Corporations will hire less private lawyers to provide legal services. The OGCC will then be more accountable for a greater portion of the work of Government Corporations.

It is envisioned by the framers of the proposed bills that with the increase in the entry levels of lawyers, the conferment of higher rank equivalents to members of the judiciary, and the creation of a promotion ladder integrated in the positions, more lawyers, especially fresh graduates, will be attracted to enter the OGCC. Government service therefore becomes a more viable option for lawyers.

If the proposed Charter becomes law, the two law offices of Government – the Office of the Solicitor General (Republic Act No. 9417) for National Government Agencies and the OGCC – will be at par, insofar as strengthening the mandates of the offices, ranks, salary grades, and benefits of the staff and additional funding for the Offices is concerned. There will be uniformity between the government law offices. Further, this will be in keeping with the policy enunciated in the Salary Standardization Law whereby all officials performing substantially the same work must be entitled to equal pay.