G.R. No. 31703 - De Perez vs. Garchitorena

The petitioners are the Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. (Philconsa) along with several prominent citizens, who are organized as a non-profit civic group dedicated to upholding constitutional principles.
The respondents include various officials such as Pedro M. Gimenez, Jose Velasco, Eladio Salita, and Jose Aviles, who are charged with the disbursement and processing of government funds.

The petition challenges the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3836, specifically the provisions that allow:

Retirement gratuity for Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and other elective congressional officers;
The commutation of accumulated vacation and sick leave for these same officials.

The petition asks for a prohibition and a preliminary injunction to restrain the Auditor General and disbursing officers from releasing payments under that law.

The law amends subsection (c) of Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as modified by previous acts.

It provides that government employees may retire after rendering a fixed period of service, with a mandatory waiting period based on the nature of service.
For members of Congress and certain elective officers, it allows retirement regardless of age after only twelve years of service.

One month’s salary for every year of service for regular government employees (subject to a maximum of twenty-four months);
For Senators and Members of the House, one year’s salary for every four years of service.

The law also permits the commutation of unused vacation and sick leave into cash at the highest rate received.
A brief historical background shows:

Originally introduced as House Bill No. 6051 on May 6, 1963.
Revised and approved with amendments (reducing the required service period for members of Congress from twenty to twelve years) during May 1963.
Finally approved on June 22, 1963, with accompanying detailed explanations in an Explanatory Note which emphasized attracting poor yet deserving public servants to Congress.

It violates Article VI, Section 14 by effecting an immediate increase in emoluments for members of Congress.
It constitutes a form of “selfish class legislation” by favoring congressional members over other government employees.
It violates the equal protection clause by discriminating against other elective officials and government employees.
Its title does not reflect the contentious retirement and commutation provisions, thus breaching the requirement of Article VI, Section 21.

Respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, argue the legitimacy of the benefits and claim:

The benefits do not amount to “forbidden compensation” under the Constitution.
The law’s title is sufficiently descriptive of its subject matter.
Petitioner lacks standing, and certain indispensable parties were not included in the complaint.

Whether Philconsa, as a civic organization composed of taxpayers and individuals concerned with proper administration of public funds, has the requisite standing to challenge Republic Act No. 3836.

Whether the retirement gratuity provisions, which allow members of Congress and other elective officials to retire regardless of age after only twelve years of service, constitute an impermissible increase in their compensation in violation of Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution.
Whether such benefits, by effectively granting a higher rate of retirement pay (one year’s salary for every four years of service) in contrast to the benefits accorded to other government employees, amount to “selfish class legislation.”

Whether the commutation of accumulated vacation and sick leave at the highest rate received further serves as an indirect method to increase compensatory benefits for Congress members, conflicting with constitutional prohibitions.

Whether the title of Republic Act No. 3836, which does not explicitly reference retirement gratuities and commutable leave benefits for members of Congress, satisfies the constitutional mandate under Article VI, Section 21 that a bill’s title must express its subject matter.

Whether the discriminatory nature of the law—in granting preferential retirement benefits to congressional members while excluding other elective officials and imposing different conditions on government employees—violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.