Case Summary (G.R. No. 248680)
Summary of Facts
On February 7, 2019, Republic Act No. 11199 was signed into law, mandating compulsory coverage by the SSS for all sea-based and land-based OFWs, who are treated similarly to self-employed individuals. The petitioners are contesting subsections (a), (c), and (e) of Section 9-B, which they argue violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, constitute unjust deprivation of property, and infringe upon their right to travel. They submitted a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition against the aforementioned provisions and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which were published on June 2, 2019.
Legal Arguments by Petitioners
The petitioners articulate that the provisions of RA 11199 and its IRR exhibit unconstitutional distinctions between land-based OFWs and local employees regarding contributions to the SSS. They argue that land-based OFWs must pay both employee and employer shares, which local employees do not, and that this requirement is arbitrary and lacks reasonable justification. Furthermore, they contend the requirement to pay SSS contributions as a condition for obtaining Overseas Employment Certificates (OEC) violates their right to due process and equal protection, as well as their right to travel since it effectively limits their ability to work abroad.
Procedural Arguments by Respondents
The respondents, in defense, argue that the petitioners lack legal standing as they failed to demonstrate direct and personal injury resulting from the contested provisions. They assert that the question posed does not satisfy the existential conditions for judicial review and emphasize that the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are inappropriate for questioning legislative judgments. Additionally, they maintain that the provisions in question serve a public interest by ensuring OFWs’ social security rights and do not violate the Constitution.
Issues for Resolution
The Court is tasked with resolving whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition is the correct remedy to challenge the provisions of RA 11199 and the IRR; whether the issue of constitutionality is ripe for judicial review; and whether the questioned provisions indeed violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution and the right to travel of the OFWs.
Court's Ruling on Procedural Issues
The Court determined that the petitioners correctly availed of the special remedies of certiorari and prohibition to challenge the constitutionality of the law and its IRR. It also acknowledged that the direct resort to the Court was justified given the legal issues involved and the transcendental importance of the constitutional questions raised concerning the rights of OFWs.
Ruling on Substantive Issues
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the compulsory coverage and contributions required by RA 11199, asserting that such measures are aimed at providing much-needed social security protection to all Filipino workers, incl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 248680)
Background and Parties
- Petitioners: Migrante International and several land-based OFWs, plus Bayan Muna, Gabriela Women's Party, ACTA-Teachers, and Kabataan Partylist Representatives.
- Respondents: Social Security System (SSS) represented by Carlos G. Dominguez III and Aurora C. Ignacio; Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) represented by Teodoro Locsin, Jr.; Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) represented by Silvestre H. Bello III; Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
- Petitioners sought to nullify subsections (a), (c), (e) of Section 9-B of Republic Act No. 11199 (Social Security Act of 2018) and portions of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for violating the Constitution.
Legislative and Regulatory Provisions Challenged
- Republic Act No. 11199 mandates compulsory coverage of all sea-based and land-based OFWs under SSS.
- Land-based OFWs treated as self-employed persons; must pay both employer and employee shares in absence of bilateral agreements.
- Section 9-B (a), (c), and (e) imposed compulsory coverage and authorized bilateral agreements for enforcement.
- IRR Rule 14 sets rules for OFW coverage, including:
- Registration and mandatory contributions for land-based OFWs.
- Enforcement via documentary requirements such as Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC) issuance requiring prepayment of contributions.
- In absence of bilateral agreements, payment collection by POEA or attached DOLE agencies through OEC issuance processes.
Petitioners' Arguments
- Procedural:
- The petition presents a valid justiciable controversy involving constitutional issues.
- Petitioners have standing as concerned citizens, association of migrants, land-based OFWs, and legislators defending prerogatives.
- Certiorari and prohibition proper remedies given constitutional issues.
- Substantive:
- Challenged provisions violate equal protection clause as land-based OFWs are not similarly situated with local employees due to employer jurisdiction issues.
- Unjust deprivation of property due to compulsory prepayment of SSS contributions before deployment, criminalizing non-payment via OEC denial.
- Violation of right to travel as OEC issuance is conditioned on payment of SSS contributions, restricting OFWs' freedom to work abroad.
- The imposed mandatory collection mechanism is ultra vires and oppressive.
Respondents' Arguments
- Procedural:
- Petitioners lack standing; land-based OFWs not shown to be currently deployed.
- Migrante lacks proof of authority to represent members.
- Legislative prerogative claims devoid of basis; petition lacks real case or controversy.
- Petitioners failed to exhaust remedies; certiorari not appropriate for questioning declared policy.
- Improper impleading of DFA, DOLE, POEA.
- Substantive:
- Presumption of constitutionality applies to RA 11199 and IRR.
- Rational basis for classification distinguishing land-based OFWs, sea-based OFWs, and local employees.
- Lack of social security agreements means employer shares cannot be enforced against foreign employers, justifying land-based OFWs paying entire contributions akin to self-employed.
- Manning agencies for sea-based OFWs have contractual obligations justifying different treatment.
- Pre-deployment payment of contributions via OEC issuance is valid exercise of police power for social justice and welfare.
- The conditioning does not violate the right to travel given regulatory nature of overseas employment.
Issues Presented
- Procedural issues:
- Is certiorari and prohibition the proper remedy?
- Is direct resort to the Supreme Court justified?
- Do petitioners satisfy requisites of judicial review?
- Substantive issues:
- Do subsections (a),