2. PARREÑO v.

COA
G.R. No. 162224 | June 7, 2007
Norbs Sarigumba and Ralph Rosales

DOCTRINE: The

FACTS:
Salvador Parreño was a retiree of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). He started receiving
his monthly pension of P 13,680. However, when he migrated to Hawaii and became a naturalized
American citizen, the AFP stopped giving out his pension due to Presidential Decree No. 1638.
Section 27 of said decree provides that a retiree who loses his Filipino citizenship shall be
removed from the retired list and shall have his retirement benefits terminated.

Initially, petitioner went to the Commission on Audit to have his monthly pension continued.
However, his petition was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. According to the COA, since what
the petitioner is essentially alleging is the constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638, only the
courts could take cognizance of such an issue. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration
which was also denied; hence, this petition for certiorari. He also assailed that his vested right on
his pension was impaired and that the citizenship requirement was discriminatory against AFP
retirees who have changed their nationality.

ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the COA has jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638.
(NO)
2. W/N PD 1638 has retroactive or prospective effect. (RETROACTIVE)
3. W/N Section 27 of PD 1638 is constitutional. (YES)

RULING:
1. The Court held that the Commission was correct in dismissing the petitioner’s claim due
to the fact that it involves the constitutionality of Section 27 of the assailed Presidential
Decree which could only be decided by the courts.

2. Section 2 of PD 1638 provides that, “the Decree shall apply to all military personnel in the
service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.” Because petitioner was still in service
when the said decree was signed on September 10, 1979 and he only retired in 1982, the
citizenship requirement is binding upon him in his retirement.

3. Aside from upholding the constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638, the Court also held
that petitioner was not deprived of any vested property right on his pension. Pension
benefits become a vested only AFTER the service of an employee. Since PD 1638 was
enacted when petitioner was STILL in service, no vested right was impaired. Furthermore,
retirement benefits of military personnel are purely gratuitous in nature.
 The SC also held that Section 27 of PD 1638 is not discriminatory and does not violate
the right to equal protection of the laws.* The petitioner’s loss of citizenship constitutes a
substantial distinction that differentiates him from other retirees who retain their Filipino
citizenship. The State has the right to a Citizen Armed Forces which includes retirees.
Thus, if a retiree has already lost his citizenship, then the State can no longer call upon
him when the need arises unlike those who have retained their citizenship.

Because of this, the Court ruled that petitioner was not denied of due process and that the
AFP had no choice but to stop his monthly pension in accordance with Section 27 of PD
1638. He was also given enough opportunity to contest such termination.

*NOTE: The right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute and could be subject to a
reasonable classification. The requisites for such a reasonable classification is as follows: (a)
must be based on substantial distinction which make real differences; (b) must be germane to
the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only and (d) must apply
equally to each member of the class.