WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

PC 1064

Para enmendar los Artículos 1-104 y 2-104 de la Ley Núm. 447 de 15 de mayo de 1951, según enmendada, conocida como “Sistema de Retiro de los Empleados del Gobierno del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico”, a los fines de incluir en la definición de “Servidores Públicos de Alto Riesgo”, a los alguaciles adscritos al Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico; para disponer que los funcionarios antes mencionados puedan acogerse voluntariamente al retiro luego de haber alcanzado los cincuenta y cinco (55) años de vida y treinta (30) años de servicio; extender por excepción la edad de retiro obligatorio para Servidores Públicos de Alto Riesgo a sesenta y dos (62) años; y para otros fines relacionados.

2025-2028 Session

Bill reclassifies Puerto Rico court marshals as high-risk employees, allowing voluntary retirement at 55/30 years service and mandatory retirement at 62, increasing pension obligations.

Referido a Comisión(es)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · PC 1064

Legislative bill overview

Bill PC 1064 amends Puerto Rico's government employee retirement system (Law 447 of 1951) to classify court marshals (alguaciles) as "High-Risk Public Servers" and establish special retirement provisions for them. The bill allows these employees to voluntarily retire at age 55 with 30 years of service and extends mandatory retirement age from the current standard to 62 years old.

Why is this important

This legislation directly affects the retirement security and career longevity of court marshals, who perform security and enforcement duties in Puerto Rico's judicial system. The changes could impact Puerto Rico's pension fund obligations and set a precedent for how other high-risk public employees are classified and compensated in retirement benefits.

Potential points of contention

  • Fiscal impact on pension system: Extending mandatory retirement age to 62 while allowing voluntary retirement at 55 may increase long-term pension liabilities and require actuarial analysis of sustainability
  • Classification consistency: Designating court marshals as "high-risk" employees may prompt similar requests from other public sector workers, creating budgetary complications
  • Precedent and equity: The special provisions raise questions about why court marshals receive these benefits versus other public employees in potentially dangerous roles (police, corrections, emergency responders)

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.