FACULTY members who are licensed professionals are not exempted from the yearly health certificate requirement, city health officials have clarified.
And while the health certificate is mandatory, there is no deadline for its submission on the part of the city government, the Manila Health Department said in a letter to labor unions in UST.
The letter, dated Aug. 22, was posted on Facebook by the Organisasyon ng mga Nagkakaisang Empleyado (ONE) ng UST Sunday evening on Sept. 22.
Manila Health Department Chief Dr. Arnold “Poks” Pangan pointed out that the Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the health certificate are two different documents.
In the first memorandum ordering UST employees to comply with the health certificate requirement, Vice Rector for Finance Fr. Roberto Luanzon Jr., O.P. on April 25 said PTR holders could opt not to secure a health certificate.
City officials had ordered UST to comply with a 2021 sanitation ordinance.
READ MORE: Timeline: Manila’s health permit ordinance
Luanzon cited Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code, which reads, “[S]uch person who has paid the professional tax shall be entitled to practice his profession […] without being subjected to any other national or local tax, license, or fee for the practice of such profession.”
A memorandum released by the Office of the Secretary General in July, which contained a list of frequently asked questions about the health permit, reiterated that PTR holders were exempted from the requirement.
The PTR is a city government tax and is obtained annually by professionals, including lawyers, doctors, and licensed teachers.
Pangan clarified that after a June 26 meeting with UST officials, the Manila Health Department only agreed to deduct the amount employees had initially paid for the PTR from the health certificate cost, which amounts to P625 annually.
“This decision is intended to provide financial relief to professionals who are required to obtain both a PTR and a Health Certificate as part of their compliance with local regulations,” he said.
Deadline ‘established’ by UST
Pangan’s Aug. 22 was primarily in response to the unions’ request for the extension of a July 31 deadline to submit health certificates.
But it was UST that “established” the deadline, not the Manila Health Department, Pangan said.
Pangan said he told UST Secretary General Fr. Louie Coronel, O.P. and the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery dean, Dr. Lourdes Maglinao, in an Aug. 16 meeting that his department was “imposing no deadline.”
Pangan also said his department expressed “leniency with and [patience] with regards to health certificate compliance of university employees.”
RELATED: City health office confirms agreement with labor unions on ‘health compliance’
“While we understand the importance of this requirement, MHD is not responsible for setting this deadline,” he said.
“Our role is to ensure that all health regulations are met to safeguard public health, but the specific timelines and enforcement of these requirements within the University are determined by its administration,” he explained.
UST made the health certificate mandatory and included it among the requirements for part-time faculty, which meant that those who did not submit before the deadline could not be recommended for reappointment.
READ: Axe set to fall on non-tenured UST profs without health permits
For tenured faculty, UST said it would use other measures to ensure compliance, such as restricting access to the MyUSTe portal.
ONE-UST had filed its requests for deadline extensions before Manila Mayor Honey Lacuna, not UST. Lacuna was even said to have allowed the final deadline extension to July 31, based on a letter from the labor coalition.
“We extend our sincere gratitude to Mayor Honey Lacuna and her office for their support and cooperation in addressing this matter, ensuring that our members have sufficient time to comply with the requirements,” an announcement posted by ONE-UST read.
Luanzon made the first extension for compliance, moving the deadline to June 30 from May 31.
ONE-UST said it released a copy of the Aug. 22 letter on Sunday “to ensure transparency, provide a clearer understanding, and address any potential misconceptions among our colleagues regarding the health permit issue.” A.L.A. Rivera
