has -- marks the present tense, licenses the perfect aspect
been -- marks the perfect aspect, licenses the passive voice
planned -- marks the passive voice
Is it really the present tense? Yes . This construction expresses a present-tense state of being . This state of being is the result of the action "to plan", so we can infer that the action must have occurred in the past, but that is not the same thing as placing the verb itself in the past tense.
The only verb in this structure that has a tense is "has". Both "been" and "planned" have no tense at all.* These participles are non-finite forms. In the case of "to plan" that may not be obvious, since the past-tense form and the participle form happen to be identical. In the case of "to be" there is no confusion, since "been" is a distinct form from "was" and "were".
Your opening statement contains a similar structure:
have -- marks the present tense, licenses the perfect aspect
been -- marks the perfect aspect, licenses the continuous aspect
learning -- marks the continuous aspect
So, the present perfect passive is no more complicated a construction than the present perfect continuous. Both use a present-tense form of the verb "to have", followed by the past-participle form of the verb "to be", in turn followed by a participle form which expresses a state.
* Two things about this statement may be confusing.
First, not everyone uses the word "tense" to mean tense and nothing else. Often other properties associated with verbs (such as aspect, voice, and mode) are lumped together and shoved under the tense label. As I use the word, there are only two tenses in English grammar: the past and the present. Anything else is, well, something else.
Second, the traditional labels for distinguishing participle forms happen to be the same as the names of the tenses. The so-called present participle does not indicate the present tense, and the so-called past participle does not indicate the past tense.