In this month’s legal update: the Supreme Court strikes down the phrase as of the date of disability from Section 13-A(c) of the SSS Law.
In Dolera v SSS (G.R. No. 253940, 20 October 2023), the Supreme Court finds this phrase unconstitutional because it violates equal protection and due process. As context, that provision talks of who are the recipient of the survivorship pension. It reads:
Upon the death of the permanent total disability pensioner, his primary beneficiaries as of the date of disability shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension …
In the case, the widow married her late husband a year after he became disabled. But before that they had been living as common-law spouses. When the husband died in 2009 and the widow filed a claim for survivorship pension, SSS denied her claim. It ruled that she was not entitled because she only married her late husband after he suffered permanent disability.
According to the Supreme Court, Sec.13-A(c) classifies dependent spouses into two groups—those whose marriages were contracted before disability and those who contracted marriages after. The second group cannot receive the survivorship pension, although their marriages are legitimate, simply because of the date of marriage. This is an unreasonable classification given that it does not achieve the law’s objective of preventing sham marriages (i.e., marrying a pensioner to get the pension). It also unduly prejudices dependent spouses whose marriages were contracted in good faith, as in this case.
A better way to achieve the law’s objective, according to the Supreme Court, is the adoption of the “durational period of relationship” as a requirement. This means that the test to determine entitlement to the survivorship pension is how long the relationship had been before the spouse died.
This case also rules that survivorship pensions are protected property interest. Considering that the deceased husband’s contribution to SSS was compulsory, his pension was not a “mere gratuity but formed part of his compensation.” Sec.13-A(c)’s classification creates a presumption that marriages contracted after one spouse suffers disability are a sham. This is dangerous because it assumes a fact that is not necessarily true and, as in this case, could lead to an outright denial of a right that one is entitled to without being afforded the opportunity to be heard. So, Section 13-A(c) also violates the due process clause of the Constitution.
