The flying risk pay (FRP) under the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines may be granted only to Civil Aeronautics Authority of the Philippines’ (CAAP) personnel whose duties are directly related to flying, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

The SC cited that under Section 30 of the law, Republic Act No. 776, CAAP-licensed airmen and other authorized personnel who are required to make regular and frequent aerial flights in connection with their duties may receive the FRP equivalent to 50 percent of their salary, provided they complete at least four hours of flight time per month.

With its ruling that invoked the provision of RA 776, the SC affirmed the notice of disallowance issued by Commission on Audit (COA) on P323,259.50 FRP payments made by the CAAP in 2011 to officials and employees who met the four-hour monthly flight requirement.

The disallowance was issued because the recipients held managerial, administrative, and finance positions and traveled by air mainly to attend conferences, seminars, public hearings, inspections, and similar activities.

In protesting the disallowance, those who received the FRP argued that they were entitled to the benefits because RA 776 covers not only “airmen” but also “other authorized personnel,” even if their duties were not directly related to flight operations.

The SC disagreed as it affirmed the COA’s disallowance in a decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.

It pointed out that RA 776 defines an “airman” as a pilot, mechanic, flight radio operator, aircraft crew member, or a person responsible for inspecting, maintaining, or repairing aircraft, as it noted that these functions are directly connected with aircraft operation and navigation.

It clarified that the phrase “other authorized personnel” similarly refers to personnel who are required to perform regular and frequent aerial flights as part of their official duties.

It stressed that the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual limits FRP to personnel whose duties are inherent inflight operations and excludes those who fly merely as passengers.

Thus, it said those who received the FRA subject of the COA’s 2011 disallowance were not among the personnel authorized to receive FRP under CAAP’s 2011 Corporate Operating Budget approved by the Department of Budget and Management.

The recipients were ordered to return the FRP amounts they received. However, those who approved and certified the payment of the FRP were absolved of liability because they had acted in good faith.

The SC ruled: All told, the COA properly disallowed the excessive and unlawful payment of FRP to CAAP officials and personnel in the amount of P323,579.50. The disallowance itself is proper, as the payments lacked statutory basis and were granted to individuals who were not legally entitled thereto.

“Finally, the Court acknowledges the use of the terms airman and airmen when quoting the pertinent provisions of RA 776, in fidelity to the language of the law as presently written.

“On the same note, the Court emphasizes that the use of gender-fair language is essential to ensure inclusivity and to reflect the equal dignity and participation of all persons in the aviation sector.

“Accordingly, the Court respectfully urges Congress to revisit RA 776 and consider adopting gender-sensitive and gender-fair language terminology in its provisions.”