So Sad About Permaplans or Permanent Plans

I’m not a Permaplans planholder, but I’m so sad about what’s happening with Permaplans or Permanent Plans, especially with the pre-need firm‘s interaction with the SEC.

Again, it’s the planholders who are suffering.

Back in April, Permaplans’ president Juan Miguel Vazquez said his firm isn’t considering going to court for rehabilitation because court rehab takes time and delays payments to planholders.

But now the firm has filed for rehab, which according to Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez is not the best option for planholders. He mentioned this while commenting on the Legacy case.

An example of a pre-need court rehab is that of CAP. After getting suspended in 2004, CAP petitioned for rehab in 2005. The court granted it in 2006. Up to now,  CAP planholders have not received what is due them.

I also have a fully-paid CAP plan for my niece, but I’ve temporarily stopped pursuing it. I also sold one big CAP plan to a family friend, and I’ve made my big sorry and they’ve been nice. But I don’t know if the family thinks of CAP and then thinks of me. I’m glad now I sold only one.

Going back to PermaPlans:

According to Doris Dumlao of Philippine Daily Inquirer,
Permaplans petitioned a Makati court on May 21 to allow it to do the following:

  • pay planholders who want to terminate their plans on a 60-40 basis: 60 percent in assets such as memorial lots and 40 percent in cash
  • pay holders of maturing plans in five years: 10 percent on the 1st year, 45 percent on the 4th year and 45 percent on the 5th year.

Permaplans has about 11,000 planholders.

I’m saddened by the fact that Vazquez and the SEC are fighting.

Vazquez said the SEC froze Permaplans’ trust fund, so PermaPlans was forced to file for rehabilitation.

But the SEC said it didn’t freeze Permaplans’ trust fund.

According to the SEC, what it did was:

  • to notify Permaplans that SEC opposed its plan of paying planholders who prefer to terminate their plans on a 60-40 basis
  • to direct the trustee banks to secure approval first from SEC before approving withdrawals from Permaplans

There’s an article by Neal Cruz titled “Gov’t regulatory agencies sleeping on the job” on the June 8, 2009 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, He didn’t name the pre-need firm, but obviously he’s referring to Permaplans.

I’m just bothered by the initial action of court rehab:

protect the pre-need firm from claims or give a reprieve to the pre-need firm from paying its obligations while something is being worked out.

“Permaplans seeks court approval for rehab,” by Doris Dumlao, Philippine Daily Inquirer,, June 1, 2009

“SEC tightens lid on Legacy,” by Darwin G.Amojelar, The Manila Times,, June 1, 2009


  1. Ricardo Camancho July 18, 2016
  2. Sey August 4, 2015
  3. eric June 24, 2015
  4. jearim June 24, 2015
  5. Nora April 4, 2015
  6. eric April 3, 2015

Leave a Reply