Dycaico v. Social Security System GR No.

161357 30 November 2005

Facts: Bonifacio Dycaico was a member of the SSS, with his common-law wife Elena and their eight children named in his data record as beneficiaries. In 1989, Bonifacio was considered retired and began receiving his monthly pension from the SSS. He married Elena on the same year that he passed away.

Shortly after Bonifacios death, Elena filed with the SSS an application for survivors pension. However, the same was denied on the ground that under Section 12-B(d) of RA 8282 (Social Security Law), she could not be considered Bonifacios primary beneficiary became they were not married at the time of his retirement.

Elena brought her case to the Social Security Commission, which still denied her claim.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proviso as of the date of his retirement in Section 12-B(d) of RA 8282 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

HELD: YES. The classification violates the equal protection clause because: (1) it is not germane to the purpose of the law. Classifying dependent spouses with respect to their entitlement based on whether the marriage was contracted before or after the retirement of the other spouse, regardless of the duration of the said marriage, bears no relation to the achievement of the police objective of the law, which is to provide meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries against the hazard of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial burden. (2) it is not based on real and substantial distinctions. It is arbitrary and discriminatory. It unfairly lumps marriages contracted after the members retirement as sham relationships or were contracted solely for the purpose of acquiring benefits accruing upon the death of the other spouse.

The proviso also violates the due process clause as it outrightly deprives the surviving spouses whose respective marriages to the retired SSS members were contracted after the latters retirement of their survivors benefits. There is outright confiscation of benefits due such surviving spouses without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The proviso creates the presumption that marriages contracted after the members retirement date were entered into for the purpose of securing benefits under RA 8282. This presumption is conclusive because the said surviving spouses are not afforded any opportunity to disprove the presence of the illicit purpose, thereby also depriving them the opportunity to be heard.