Mr. Jose P. Quion. Mr. Rolie Espinas. Mr. Edelito A. Quiño. 32, 31, and 31 years of service respectively as Job Order personnel at CMU’s RGMO Rice Programs. For more than three decades, these men have quietly built a legacy few can match. They have mentored generations, shaped projects, and contributed to the growth of programs essential to the university and the community.

And yet, for all their service, they remain classified as “temporary.” No permanent status. No comprehensive benefits. No security of tenure. For decades, their work has been both indispensable and invisible in the structures that govern them.

Central Mindanao University Employees Association Inc. (CMUEAI) recently honored them. Plaques. Applause. Facebook posts. Necessary, yes—but is it enough?

The Bitter Truth Behind the Honor

The recognition exposes a reality that is difficult to swallow. How can three decades of loyalty and dedication still be considered “temporary”? How can a system rely so heavily on individuals while failing to secure their stability?

This is not just a university issue. It is systemic. Contractualization has become normalized across organizations in the Philippines. Institutions gain flexibility. Workers shoulder uncertainty. Dedication is measured, but security is delayed.

Imagine building programs, guiding students, ensuring the success of entire projects—all while living under the uncertainty that your next contract renewal is not guaranteed. Imagine seeing colleagues advance while your decades of labor are acknowledged only through ceremonies. This is not honor—it is endurance rewarded with uncertainty.

A Legal Perspective

Philippine labor law provides clear protections for workers in situations like this:

• Security of Tenure – Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, employees who perform essential and continuous work for an institution are considered regular employees, regardless of their Job Order or contractual label. Keeping someone in a temporary status for decades violates this principle.

• Prohibition of “Endo” Abuse – Short-term Job Orders are legal for temporary, project-based work. But using Job Order arrangements to avoid regularization for years—or in this case, decades—is illegal. DOLE defines such practices as end-of-contract abuse.

• Mandatory Benefits – Long-serving personnel are entitled to SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG contributions, paid leaves, and retirement benefits. Denying these benefits to workers who have contributed for decades constitutes a violation of labor standards and statutory rights.

• Regularization and Retroactive Rights – In cases like this, workers may petition for regularization and retroactive benefits, since their work clearly falls under “essential, continuous employment.”

In other words, the law supports these men not only morally but legally. Honoring them with plaques or posts is commendable—but without structural reform, their legal rights remain unfulfilled.

The Questions We Must Ask

Stories like these demand reflection:

• Why must loyalty be proven over decades before security is granted?

• What systemic barriers have allowed such prolonged inequity to persist?

• How do we prevent future workers from repeating this cycle?

What Should Change—Now

Recognition is a start—but it cannot be the end. These men deserve more than applause. They deserve structural reform:

• Security of Tenure – Long-serving personnel should be regularized well before retirement.

• Comprehensive Benefits – Healthcare, retirement, paid leaves. Not privileges. Rights.

• Professional Growth Opportunities – Experience should translate into promotions, leadership, and skills development.

• Transparency & Accountability – Recognition must be paired with a clear plan to protect future workers from the same decades-long uncertainty.

Beyond Plaques and Posts

Sir Jose, Sir Rolie, and Sir Edelito are symbols of loyalty, dedication, and resilience. Their stories should inspire admiration—but they should also provoke outrage and reflection.

Decades of service should not come at the cost of security. Dedication should not require waiting thirty years to be valued. Loyalty should never be the reason a worker is left in limbo.

We are hoping to hear good news for these heroes soon—tangible reform, recognition that protects, and benefits that secure their families. Otherwise, this recognition risks being nothing more than a hollow gesture.

Applause is fleeting. Reform is lasting. The clock is ticking. 

Let this be a wake-up call: honoring decades of service is important—but preventing decades of waiting is urgent. The next generation should not inherit this system of deferred dignity. We no longer want to see another Jose, Rolie, or Edelito waiting thirty years to be truly seen, valued, and honored—paying the price for loyalty.