WHAT IS FORCED LEAVE?

 Leave & Other Benefits

 - October 16, 2015

The concept of forced or mandatory leave in the Philippine civil service began in 1986
when then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Executive Order No. 1077 revising the
computation of creditable vacation and sick leaves of government officers and
employees. It is called forced because Section 2 of the EO requires all government
officials and employees to go on a 5-day vacation leave annually, whether they like to or
not. The section reads:

Section 2. All officials and employees shall be required to go on vacation leave for a
minimum of five (5) working days annually. The head of office shall adopt a staggered
scheduling of vacation leaves of officials and employees in his office: Provided, that he
may, as the exigency of the service requires, cancel any previously scheduled leave.

Subsequently, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 1986 was issued setting forth the
guidelines on its implementation. According to the circular –
xxx3. A staggered schedule of vacation leave of officials and employees for a minimum
of five (5) working days annually shall be prepared. Those with accumulated vacation
leave of less than ten (10) days shall have the option to go on scheduled vacation leave or
not…
In 1987, the CSC issued Memorandum Circular No. 22 (Annual Five-Day Vacation
Leave Under EO No. 1077) clarifying that the 5-day mandatory leave is already
complied with if the employee goes on an approved vacation leave for at least five
days within the same calendar year. To be precise, I quote:
The annual 5-day vacation leave required under Executive Order No. 1077 is considered
complied with when an officer or employee goes on approved vacation leave within a
calendar year for a period aggregating not less than five (5) days which need not be
successive…

At present, the rule on forced/mandatory leave is reflected in Rule XVI of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), as amended by
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. 1998, viz –
 Sec. 25.  Five days forced/mandatory leave – All officials and employees with 10 days
or more vacation leave credits shall be required to go on vacation leave whether
continuous or intermittent for a minimum of five (5) working days annually under the
following conditions:
*The head of agency shall, upon prior consultation with the employees, prepare a
staggered schedule of the mandatory five-day vacation leave of officials and employees,
provided that he may, in the exigency of the service, cancel any previously scheduled
leave;

*The mandatory annual five-day vacation leave shall be forfeited if not taken during the
year. However, in cases where the scheduled leave has been cancelled in the exigency of
the service by the head of agency, the schedule leave shall no longer be deducted from
the total accumulated vacation leave;

*Retirement and resignation from the service in a particular year without completing the
calendar year do not warrant forfeiture of the corresponding leave credits if concerned
employees opted not to avail of the required five-day mandatory vacation leave;

*Those with accumulated vacation leave of less than ten (10) days shall have the option
to go on forced leave or not. However, officials and employees with accumulated
vacation leave of 15 days who availed of monetization for 10 days, under Section 22
hereof, shall still be required to go on forced leave.

If you notice, the new rules do not include any provision to the effect that the 5-day
mandatory leave is already complied with if the employee goes on an approved
vacation leave for at least five days within the same calendar year, as in
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. 1987.  Does that mean it no longer applies? If it
no longer applies, then should employees file for 5 days forced leave on top of the 5 days
vacation leave they’ve already had in a year?
It does not appear so. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. 1998 contained a general
repealing provision which states that all prior Civil Service rules and
regulations inconsistent with it are repealed. Such kind of repeal falls under the category
of an implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency. It means that the old rule will be
repealed only if it is clearly inconsistent and incompatible with the new rule covering the
same subject matter and they cannot be reconciled or harmonized. As held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Mecano vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 103982,
December 11, 1992), the fact that a later rule may relate to the same subject matter as an
earlier rule is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior rule, since the
new rule may merely be cumulative or a continuation of the old one.
As there appears no irreconcilable conflict between the rules in so far as forced or
mandatory leave is concerned, an employee or officer who goes on approved vacation
leave for at least five days within the same calendar year must be deemed to have
complied with the mandatory leave. In such case, there is no need to deduct or forfeit 5
days in the employee’s leave credits at the end of the year although his/her approved
leave was not denominated as forced or mandatory.
To read more about the importance of harmonizing administrative rules and laws,
click here.