Photo from Unsplash | Chris Vanhove
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law is declared void for being violative of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
Such proviso is unfounded and inharmonious with the spirit behind the enactment of the Social Security Law for discriminating against common-law relationships.
In the case of Belinda D.R. Dolera v. Social Security System (G.R. No. 253940, October 24, 2023), the Supreme Court strikes down the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A (c) of the Social Security Law for being violative of the due process and equal protection of the Constitution.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Belinda (Belinda) and her husband Leonardo (Leonardo) lived as common-law spouses and had a child in 1979. In 1980, Leonardo became disabled and started receiving his permanent total disability pension from SSS. In 1981, Leonardo married Belinda. Upon Leonardo’s death in 2009, Belinda filed a claim for survivorship pension from SSS.
SSS denied Belinda’s claim pursuant to Section 13-A (c) of the Social Security Law which provides that “upon the death of the permanent total disability pensioner, his [or her] primary beneficiaries as of the date of disability shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension xxx”.
According to SSS, Belinda could not be considered as a primary beneficiary under the Social Security Law as she only became Leonardo’s legitimate spouse after the date of his permanent total disability.
In 2017, Belinda filed a Petition before the Social Security Commission arguing that as Leonardo’s legal spouse, she is a qualified beneficiary of the survivorship pension. According to her, Section 13-A (c) of the Social Security Law violated the equal protection clause as it discriminated against dependent spouses who contracted their respective marriages to pensioners after the latter suffered permanent total disability.
Also, she argued that Section 13-A (c) violated her right to due process of law since the social security benefits was taken away without notice and hearing.
The Social Security Commission denied the petition, saying that unless Section 13-A (c) of the Social Security Law or any proviso thereof is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the said provision of the law remains valid.
When Belinda elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), CA denied the petition and upheld the decision of the Social Security Commission.
The pertinent issue in this case is this:
Is Belinda entitled to receive survivorship pension under the Social Security Law?
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
According to the Supreme Court, the Social Security Law is a social welfare legislation enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.
As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law shall be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary of the statute, “for it is only be giving them a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized.”
Primary beneficiaries under the Social Security Law
Under Section 8 (k) of the Social Security Law, the term “primary beneficiaries pertain to the following:
- “the dependent spouse until he or she remarries;” and
- “the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate children”.
Section 8 (e) provides that the surviving spouse, to be considered as a primary beneficiary, must be entitled by law to receive support from the member.
Moreover, to be considered a primary beneficiary who is entitled to receive survivorship pension under Section 13-A (c) of the Social Security Law, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.
“As of the date of disability”
The Supreme Court finds that this proviso in Section 13-A (c) is VOID for being violative of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
1. Violative of the Equal Protection Clause
The constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the law means that a statute is based on reasonable classification, such that: (1) it rests on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class.
In the present case, “dependent spouses” as primary beneficiaries under Section 13-A(c) may similarly be classified into two groups: (1) those whose respective marriages to the SSS members were contracted prior to the latter’s disability; and (2) those whose respective marriages to the SSS members were contracted after the latter’s disability. While both groups are considered legitimate spouses of the deceased pensioners, the difference rests exclusively on the dates when they contracted their respective marriages. Applying the classification, petitioner belongs to the second group of dependent spouses.
In essence, the classification under Section 13-A (c) of “dependent spouses” into two groups though the qualifying phrase “as of the date of disability” is unreasonable and not necessarily an effective means to achieve the law’s policy of preventing sham marriages. It creates undue prejudice and discrimination against dependent spouses who did not contract their respective marriages to their pensioner-spouses for the purpose of obtaining benefits and who would otherwise be entitled to the survivorship pension if not for the unreasonable classification.
2. Violative of the Equal Protection Clause
Section 13-A (c) creates a conclusive presumption that marriages contracted after the SSS member already suffered disability are for an illicit purpose. This presumption amounts to deprivation of property without being afforded the opportunity to be heard.
Considering Leonardo’s compulsory contributions to the SSS, Leonardo’s pension formed part of his compensation. As such, Belinda’s right to receive survivorship pension was already established because surviving spouses of deceased pensioners are entitled to it.
Thus, the unceremonious denial thereof is an outright confiscation of Belinda’s right in violation of the due process clause.
As a result, the Supreme Court ordered the Social Security System to grant Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, which accrued from the death of her husband Leonardo.
In fine, the Supreme Court granted Belinda’s petition and reversed and set the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law is declared void for being violative of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
Related Article/s:
The New Social Security Law of 2018
Social Security Coverage of Employees
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.