The Unconstitutional SSS Law Proviso

In the case of Belinda Dolera vs. Social Security System (G.R. No. 253940, October 24, 2023), the Supreme Court struck down a proviso in Republic Act No. 8282, otherwise known as the “Social Security Act” (or the “SSS Law”), for impinging the 1987 Constitution. Particularly, the equal protection clause and due process clause was violated by a phrase found in Section 13-A (c) of the SSS Law.

For context, Section 13-A of the SSS Law provides for the benefits of a member suffering from a permanent total disability, and these benefits consist of a monthly pension. Basically, a member is entitled to a monthly pension if he suffers a permanent total disability that renders him incapable of working. Under sub-paragraph (c) of Section 13-A, when the permanently disabled member dies, the monthly pension will redound to the benefit of his or her beneficiaries, including the legitimate spouse.

The facts of the case are as follow: 

Belinda and Leonardo Dolera lived together and had a child in 1979. In 1980, Leonardo became disabled and, due to his membership with the SSS, started receiving his monthly pension from the institution. In 1981, Leonardo and Belinda got married, and after living together as husband and wife for twenty-eight (28) years, Leonardo died in 2009.

Belinda, as the surviving wife, filed a claim for survivorship pension with the SSS in order that she may receive Leonardo's monthly pension in his stead. Unfortunately, the claim was denied by SSS citing Section 13(c) of the SSS Law which states:

“(c) 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: xxx.”

According to the SSS, Belinda could not be considered as a primary beneficiary under the SSS Law since she only became Leonardo’s wife after the date of his permanent disability. Owing to the phrase “as of the date of disability” in sub-paragraph (c), the benefits of receiving the monthly pension of a surviving spouse redound only to those who are married to the SSS member before the date of disability.

In response, Belinda disputed the phrase “as of date of disability” for being unconstitutional because it creates an unjust discrimination between those who were married to the member before the disability and those who were married to the member after the disability.

When the issue reached the Supreme Court, it ruled in Belinda’s favor and held that the phrase “as of the date of disability” is unconstitutional, given that:

First, the SSS Law created the SSS, a government agency responsible for providing social security protection to workers in the private sector. Its overall goal is to provide a safety net to Filipino workers and ensure that its members have financial support in times of dire situations, such as retirement, death or disability. The Supreme Court stressed that: 

“[T]he SSS Law is a social welfare legislation enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social just and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.”

To this extent, the SSS Law is considered as a social welfare legislation and, therefore, any doubt that may arise from the provisions of the SSS Law must be resolved in favor of the intended beneficiary of the said law.

Second, the Supreme Court noted a striking resemblance between this case and the decided case of Dycaico vs. SSS (G.R. No. 161357, November 30, 2005), wherein a similar provision was ruled as unconstitutional. In Dycaico, Elena, the beneficiary, is the widow of an SSS member, and she was claiming for the retirement benefits of her deceased husband.

Similar to this case, the SSS denied the claim of Elena because she was only married to her husband, Bonifacio, years after he was retired. According to the SSS, the phrase “as of the date of his retirement”, under Section 12-B of the SSS Law, only allows the release of the retirement benefits to spouses who were married to the member at the time of his retirement. This interpretation by the SSS was overruled by the Supreme Court as it found that the phrase was violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 

In this case, the Supreme Court applied the Dycaico ruling and struck down the phrase “as of the date of disability” for violating the equal protection clause. Evidently, the proviso results in the classification of “beneficiaries” into two groups:

(a) Those dependent spouses whose marriages to SSS members were contracted prior to the latter’s retirement; and

(b) Those dependent spouses whose marriages to SSS members were contracted after the latter’s retirement.

In Dycaico, it was argued that the proviso “as of the date of his retirement” was justified to prevent sham marriages or those contracted  solely to enable one spouse to continue claiming monthly pensions upon the anticipated death of the other spouse. Apparently, the apprehension stemmed from a supposed trend where some members sought to extend their monthly pensions even beyond their respective deaths by contracting marriage with a non-member a few months before their expected deaths to further capitalize on legal benefits.  

While the intention behind the proviso was valid, the Supreme Court found that the means employed, through the callous interpretation of the law, did not justify the end being achieved. The Court held that the classification, based merely on the time the dependent spouse married the SSS member, failed to effectively address the issue of sham marriages, rendering it as an insufficient method to achieve the policy objectives of the SSS Law. Not only was it insufficient, but it was likewise considered unreasonable and downright discriminatory to spouses who married the SSS member out of genuine and legitimate reasons.

Finally, the proviso “as of the date of disability” violates the due process clause because it effectively creates a fatal presumption that marriages between the dependent spouse and the SSS member after the latter’s disability are conclusively considered sham marriages.

The Court held: “As it appears, Section 13-A(c) creates a conclusive presumption: that marriages contracted after the SSS member already suffered disability are for an illicit purpose. The presumption is dangerous as it assumes a fact which is not necessarily true. This amounts to a deprivation of property without being afforded the opportunity to be heard.”

All in all, Supreme Court ordered the SSS to grant Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, which accrued from the death of her husband, Leonardo. Consequently, this will open the door to all claims that were unjustly denied based on the same reason in this case and in Dycaico. 

As a final note, this case should serve as a potent reminder to all government agencies operating under the policy of social justice to be more liberal in interpreting the laws that grant the benefits of their members. Especially, in today’s world where prices are high and times are hard, the pressure of every regular Juan to earn a living mounts each day. Owing to their mandate in the Constitution, it is imperative for the government to fulfill its duty in serving the well-being of its citizens, and this necessitates a flexible and compassionate approach rather than strict implementation of the law.