THE Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) sought the help of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. regarding its long-delayed request with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for equalization of salary grades of public attorneys and their counterpart prosecutors in the National Prosecution Service (NPS). PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta, interviewed by The Manila Times on Wednesday, made it clear that her agency’s request, if granted, would not benefit her but all its current senior officials and its future officials. After she was conferred with the Presidential Lingkod Bayan Award in 2004, Rueda-Acosta was automatically promoted by way of an increase in salary rank equivalent to that of a department secretary or from salary grade 30 to salary grade 31. The request, submitted before DBM on Dec. 20, 2021, is being made to fully realize the spirit and legislative intent behind the provisions of Republic Act 9406, or the PAO Law, Acosta said. “We at the PAO trust the president for his unwavering understanding of the needs of our office in providing quality public service to our clients and equalizing their standing in the judicial arena,” Acosta said. Ana Lisa Soriano, deputy chief public attorney for Luzon, cited a particular provision under PAO Law, which mandates that the chief public attorney shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, salaries, allowances and retirement privileges as those of the chief state prosecutor of NPS. Similarly, the deputy chief public attorneys shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, salaries, allowances and retirement privileges as those of NPS’ assistant chief state prosecutor. Moreover, other PAO positions like regional, provincial and city public attorney should also have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, salaries, allowances and retirement privileges as those from their NPS counterparts, Soriano said. Erwin Erfe, deputy chief public attorney for Visayas and Mindanao, said the DBM denied its request in 2022 because the NPS Law was a later law than the PAO Law. The DBM also wanted PAO to first solicit the opinion/position of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the issue, Erfe said. “But we believed that [the] DOJ’s official opinion/position is unnecessary since PAO is an independent and autonomous office although attached to the DOJ but only for purposes of policy and program coordination,” he said.