By REY G. PANALIGAN
High Court OKs pensions for spouses of retired members
The Supreme Court has declared final its decision that nullified a provision in the Social Security System (SSS) law that denies survivor’s pension and other benefits to a dependent spouse who was married to an SSS member after his retirement.
With the ruling, surviving spouses of SSS members — even if married after the members’ retirement — can now receive survivor’s pension and other benefits from the SSS.
In another decision, the Supreme Court stopped the Sandiganbayan temporarily from proceeding with a graft case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman against Henry T. Go, former president and chairman of the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO), in connection with the nullified contract over Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).
In a temporary restraining order (TRO) dated June 15, the SC’s First Division chaired by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban said:
"Acting on the prayer of petitioner for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the Court further resolves to grant the same and to issue the temporary restraining orderprayed for effective as of this date and continuing until orders.
"Now, therefore you (Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Special Prosecutor), your officers, agents, representatives,and/or persons acting upon your orders or in your place or stead, are hereby enjoined, ordered, commanded and directed to desist, until further orders from this Court, from proceeding with the pretrial conference, pre-trial proper and trial of Henry T. Go in Criminal Case no. 28092…."
The Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division was directed to comment on Go’s petition in 10 days.
In its decision on the SSS, the Supreme Court nullified the phrase "as of the date of retirement" in Section 12-B (d) of Republic Act No. 8282, which states that "upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension."
Because of this phrase, the SSS has been denying the applications for survivor’s pension filed by spouses whose marriages to SSS members were contracted after the members’ retirement.
Section 12-B (d) of RA 8282 was challenged in a petition before the SC by Elena Dycaico after her application for survivor’s pension was denied by both the SSS and the Social Security Commission (SSC).
Bonifacio Dycaico had been a selfemployed member of the SSS since 1980 until his retirement in 1989 when he started receiving monthly pensions. During this period, he was not married to Mrs. Dycaico.
A few months before Dycaico died in 1997, he married Mrs. Dycaico. After the death of her husband, Mrs. Dycaico applied for survivor’s pension but was denied by the SSS and the SSC due to Section 12-B (d) of RA 8282.
Resolving Mrs. Dycaico’s petition, the SC last Nov. 30, 2005, declared void the provision"as of the date of his retirement" in Section 12-B (d) of RA 8282 as violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Both the SSS and the SSC filed motions for reconsideration.
The SSS told the SC that the court’s Nov. 30 decision "if not corrected, poses a strong threat to the financial viability of the SSS" and "the SSS anticipates the possibility of some unscrupulous members who might contract spurious marriages after the retirement to enable their spouses to claim the benefits under RA 8282 upon their anticipated death."
The SSC, on the other hand, said that the provision "as of the date of his retirement" does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it is applied uniformly and equally to all dependent spouses of SSS members who contracted their respective marriages after the latter’s retirement.
"The viability of the Social Security Fund is the single most valid argument against the declaration of unconstitutionality of the proviso ‘as of the date of his retirement,’" the SSC added.
The SC, however, upheld its Nov. 30, 2005, decision, declaring: "The proviso ‘as of the date of his retirement’ violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it impermissibly discriminates against those dependent spouses whose respective marriages to the SSS members were contracted after the latter’s retirement."
It added: "The due process clause of the Constitution is infringed by the proviso because it outrightly deprives those dependent spouses who married the SSS members after their retirement of the survivor’s pension, a property interest, without giving them an opportunity to be heard."
The High Court said it "does not subscribe to the scenario envisioned by the SSS of ‘the possibility of some unscrupulous members who might contract spurious marriages after the retirement to enable their spouses to claim the benefits under RA 8282.’ This view reveals a rather cynical and disdainful attitude towards the men and women who diligently toil and contribute a portion of their monthly earnings to the fund in order that they, as well as their beneficiaries, would have some relief in the event of disability, illness, death, and other contingencies resulting in the loss of income,"
In the case of the Dycaicos, the court said, "There is no question that the petitioner was the dependent spouse of Bonifacio who was likewise his legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from him. Accordingly, as Bonifacio’s primary beneficiary at the time of his death, the petitioner is entitled to the survivor’s pension under RA 8282."
In the other case involving the PIATCO, Go and former Transportation Secretary Vicente Rivera were charged with graft by the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the 2003 nullification of the PIATCO contract over NAIA’s Terminal 3.
They sought the dismissal of the charges against them, but the Sandiganbayan denied their plea in a resolution dated Dec. 6, 2005. They elevated the case to the SC.
In denying their motion to dismiss the charges, the Sandiganbayan noted that the documents and other information submitted to it have established probable cause to charge them with graft over the NAIA Terminal 3 contract.
The criminal charge sheet stated that Go and Rivera allegedly conspired to bind the government in a "grossly disadvantageous" contract on Nov. 26, 1998 over the construction of NAIA’s Terminal 3.
In 2003, the Supreme Court declared null and void PIATCO’s contract after finding that Paircargo Consortium, predecessor of PIATCO, did not possess the requisite financial capacity when it was awarded the NAIA’s Terminal 3 contract, and that the agreement was contrary to public policy.
Last Jan. 31, the SC declared final its Dec. 19, 2005, decision that allowed the government to take over NAIA’s Terminal 3 but only after payment of an initial R3.002 billion to PIATCO representing the proffered value of the state-of-the-art facilities.
"Wherefore, the motion for partial reconsideration of the petitioners (Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, the Department of Transportation and Communications, and the Manila International Airport Authority) is denied with finality," the SC said in a 14-page full court resolution written by Justice Dante O. Tinga.
At the same time, the Supreme Court denied the motions for partial reconsideration filed by two Japanese firms – Takenaka Corp. and Asahikosan Corp. – and the motions for reconsideration-in-intervention filed by Rep. Salacnib Baterina.
In its Dec. 19, 2005 decision, also written by Justice Tinga, the SC ruled that within 60 days from the finality of its decision, the Pasay City regional trial court (RTC) shall determine the just compensation to PIATCO for the construction of Terminal 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment