G.R. No. 248680 - Concurring and Dissenting Opinion

G.R. No. 248260, Novermber 5, 2024,
♦ Decision, Singh, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]

MIGRANTE INTERNATIONAL, FELIZA B. BENITEZ, JENNIFER BORBE, MARIA LOVINA CASTRO, MICHELLE CUSTODIO, ERVIE FUENTES, FATIMA MAMPO, ELVIRA MONTERO, ROSARIO J. VALDESCO, VERNA VILLANCIO, NERI COLMENARES, CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, FERDINAND GAITE, EUFEMIA CULLAMAT, BAYAN MUNA PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVES; ARLENE D. BROSAS, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE; FRANCISCA L. CASTRO, ACT-TEACHERS PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE; AND SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE, PETITIONERS,
VS.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, REPRESENTED BY CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, AURORA C. IGNACIO, SSS PRESIDENT AND VICE-CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY TEODORO LOCSIN, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, REPRESENTED BY SILVESTRE H. BELLO III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR BERNARD OLALIA, RESPONDENTS.

One of the significant amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 111991 or the Social Security Act of 2018 is the extension of the compulsory coverage in the Social Security System (SSS) to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), both land-based and sea-based.2 For this purpose, the law mandates that land-based OFWs shall be treated in the same manner as self-employed persons under such rules and regulations that the Social Security Commission (SSC) shall prescribe.3 Meanwhile, the manning agencies, as agents of their principals, shall be considered as the employers of sea-based OFWs.4 The law also provides that the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and SSS shall ensure the compulsory coverage of OFWs through bilateral social security and labor agreements (BSS/LA) and other measures for enforcement.5

Pursuant to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 11199, the SSC issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11199 (IRR). Based on the IRR, land-based OFWs, like self-employed persons, shall pay both the employee and employer contributions,6 until such time that a BSS/LA is negotiated with the host countries of land-based OFWs to ensure that their employers, like the principals of sea-based OFWs, pay the required contributions.7 Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR also provides that for land-based OFWs in countries without any BSS/LA with the Philippines, the measures of enforcement shall include the collection of the contributions as a pre-condition to the issuance of the Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC) of land-based OFWs.

The ponencia upholds the constitutionality of the aforementioned provision of Republic Act No. 11199 and its IRR, except Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR insofar as it requires the payment of SSS contributions before an OEC may be issued to a land-based OFW.8 According to the ponencia, contrary to the allegations of petitioners, the assailed provisions of the law and the IRR do not violate the equal protection clause.9 However, it declares that Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR constitutes an invalid exercise of police power and rule-making power, and violates the land-based OFWs' right to travel.10

I write this Opinion merely to offer added discussion on the equal protection clause and to raise my reservations as to the finding of violation of the right to travel.

Parsed, petitioners' arguments in relation to the equal protection clause is two-pronged. First, they argue that Section 9-B(a), (c), and (e) of Republic Act No. 11199 and its related provisions in the IRR violate the equal protection clause because land-based OFWs are treated in the same manner as local employees, inasmuch as both are now subject to the compulsory coverage of SSS, even though they are actually not similarly situated since the employers of land-based OFWs are outside the Philippines and are thus beyond the ambit of our laws.11 Second, they posit that the same provisions unduly discriminate against land-based OFWs because unlike local employees and sea based OFWs, land-based OFWs are treated in the same manner as self-employed persons, such that they are required to pay both the employee and employer contributions to SSS. On the other hand, local employees have their local employers, while sea-based OFWs have their respective manning agencies, to shoulder the employer's share and remit the premiums to SSS.12

According to the ponencia, there is no violation of the equal protection clause since there is reasonable basis to warrant a differential treatment among local employees, land-based OFWs, and sea-based OFWs. The policy behind Republic Act No. 11199 is to-extend social security protection to all Filipino workers, both local and overseas. In order to achieve this, however, the State must address the differences in the nature of employment of local employees and overseas workers.13 The ponencia explains that the difference in the treatment of local employees, land-based OFWs, and sea-based OFWs arises not from discrimination, but out of practical necessity,14 thus:

While I agree with the conclusion drawn by the ponencia, I submit this Opinion to fully address the issues that were raised by petitioners in relation to the equal protection clause. Considering that the present case touches upon the Constitutional rights of our modern-day heroes, it would be a disservice to them if the Court's decision does not fully eliminate their doubts and leave out some of their questions. Thus, with due respect, I offer the following thoughts.

A. The SSS compulsory coverage may be extended to land-based OFWs even though their employers are situated outside the Philippines

For the first issue presented by petitioners—that land-based OFWs should not be subjected to the compulsory coverage of SSS because unlike local employees, their employers are outside our jurisdiction—I respectfully opine that petitioners' reliance on the equal protection clause is misplaced.

The Constitutionally enshrined right to equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.16 However, the Court has time and again ruled that the equal protection clause-does not require absolute equality, but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.17 In other words, the law is not required to provide for equality among all persons if they are not similarly situated. Verily, it recognizes that "inherent in the right to legislate is the right to classify."18 Accordingly, the legislature is allowed to classify the subjects of legislation, provided the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary, based on the following requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the class.19

"The problem, thus, in equal protection cases is one of determining the validity of the classification made by law."20 Stated differently, if a law is made applicable to all without favoring or discriminating a particular class, then there could be no violation of the equal protection clause, as in the present case insofar as Republic Act No. 11199 extends the compulsory coverage of SSS to all OFWs.

Through Republic Act No. 11199, coverage in SSS is now compulsory upon all Filipino workers, whether local or overseas. Thus, social security protection in the form of retirement, death, disability, funeral, sickness and maternity benefits, among others, is now available to all Filipino workers, even to land-based OFWs.21 It is therefore clear that Republic Act No. 11199 does not discriminate. On the contrary, it is one of the State's responses to the growing clamor for a more vigorous effort towards the elimination of inequalities. This is even more true because as early as 1988, sea-based OFWs are already covered by SSS pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement between SSS and DOLE stating that one of the conditions of the Standard Employment Contract of seafarers would be that sea-based OFWs shall be covered by SSS.22

Verily, while it is not the business of the Court to comment on the wisdom of a particular law, I respectfully submit that the policy behind Republic Act No. 11199 towards making the SSS benefits accessible to all, regardless of the nature, location, or status of employment, is noble. Our land-based OFWs, as well as their families and other beneficiaries, also need social security protection, regardless of the fact that their employers are beyond the reach of Philippine laws. Indeed, for purposes of providing social security protection, one should not distinguish between local employees and overseas workers, much less between land-based and sea-based OFWs.

B. Requiring land-based OFWs to pay both the employee and employer contributions does not violate their right to equal protection

Anent the second issue, I opine as well that requiring land-based OFWs to pay both the employee and employer contributions to SSS does not violate the land-based OFWs' right to equal protection. As aptly ruled by the ponencia, this arrangement arises not from discrimination, but from administrative feasibility.23

It is settled that for all compulsory members of SSS, both the employer and the employee should contribute to the employee's monthly premium contributions.24 This is true for all. In the case of local employees, their employers are required by law to withhold their employees' share and remit the same to SSS together with the employer's contributions.25 For sea-based OFWs, their manning agencies, who by law are considered as their employers, are also required to remit both the employee and employers share to SSS.26 On the other hand, since the shares of the employers of land-based OFWs are beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine laws, the duty to pay both employee and employer contributions is placed on the land-based OFWs.27 It is therefore clear that Republic Act No. 11199 treats local employees, sea-based OFWs, and land-based OFWs equally since all their monthly SSS premiums comprise of both the employee and the employer contributions.

While it is true that the current set-up is burdensome to land-based OFWs since they have to actually shell out money for their and their employer's SSS contributions pending execution of a BSS/LA with their host countries, this difference in treatment was carefully considered by the legislative branch. At the risk of being repetitive, unlike local employees, the employers of land-based OFWs are outside the Philippines and cannot therefore be compelled to remit the contributions. In the same vein, the Court in Joint Ship Manning Group, Inc. v. SSS,28 explained that unlike land-based OFWs, all sea-based OFWs have only one standard contract, which provides for the rights and obligations of the manning agencies, and which includes the duty to remit the SSS contributions of and for the sea-based OFWs. In other words, the difference in the manner or means by which the premium contributions are collected from local employees, land-based OFWs, and sea-based OFWs rests on substantial distinctions.

To clarify, however, nothing in the law states that land-based OFWs are compelled to bear the burden of their employers' share or that they could not collect the same from their employers. Verily, until such time BSS/LAs are executed, land-based OFWs are not prevented from collecting from their employers the latter's share in the monthly SSS contributions, or from demanding a higher salary to cover for their employers' share in the SSS premium. While I recognize that these solutions may be arduous to some, I respectfully submit that mere inconvenience cannot trump the presumption of constitutionality that Republic Act No. 11199 enjoys. "A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality."29

In view of the foregoing, I opine that extending the compulsory coverage of SSS to land-based OFWs and requiring payment of both the employee and employer contributions from them do not violate the land-based OFWs' right to equal protection.

As regards Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR, I submit that, contrary to the ponencia, this does not violate the land-based OFWs' right to travel.

The constitutional right to travel is part of liberty, which a citizen cannot be deprived of without due process of law. However, this right is not absolute, as it is subject to constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations.30

Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. In Leave Division, OAS, OCA v. Heusdens,31 the Court enumerated some of the statutory limitations on the right to travel:

On the other hand, an example of an inherent limitation to the right to travel is the power of courts to prohibit persons charged with a crime from leaving the country. For instance, "the court's power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. As a result, a person with a pending criminal case and provisionally released on bail does not have an unrestricted right to travel."33

In ruling that Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR impairs the right to travel of land-based OFWs, the ponencia rules:

[T]he assailed provision of the IRR provides that land-based OFWs are required to pay in advance their SSS contributions for the issuance of the OEC. However, without the OEC, a land-based OFW's right to travel abroad is significantly restricted, as their right to work overseas hinges on obtaining the OEC. Without the OEC, a land-based OFW cannot be deployed to their place of work. Since the primary purpose of a land-based OFW's travel abroad is to work, requiring them to pay their SSS contributions in advance to obtain their OEC effectively deprives them of their right to travel and, consequently, their livelihood. Thus, the assailed provision of the IRR poses an actual restriction on the right to travel, although primarily imposed to enforce collection of SSS contributions. Additionally, this impairment on the land-based OFWs' right to travel does not serve the interest of national security, public safety or public health; rather, it primarily aims to enforce the collection of the required SSS contributions.34

Contrary to the position taken by petitioners and the ponencia,35 I believe there is nothing in Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR that prevents land-based OFWs from travelling. To be sure, they are still allowed to travel for work, subject only to certain conditions, such as the payment of SSS premium in this case. I respectfully submit that these conditions, such as the requirement to obtain a passport, to go through immigration checks, to pay travel taxes, or in the case of OFWs, to secure an OEC, are only administrative requirements and not impairments to the right to travel.

That said, I join the ponencia in still declaring Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR as unconstitutional. To this end, I express my full concurrence with the ponencia's view that Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR is an invalid exercise of police power.36 While the objective or purpose of the rule is lawful, the manner or means employed is far from reasonably necessary and unduly oppresses against land-basec OFWs. The ponencia explains thus:

Additionally, requiring the land-based OFWs to pay in advance their SSS contributions for the issuance of their OECs is not reasonably necessary to accomplish the State's objective of affording them social security protection. As correctly pointed out by [petitioners], land-based OFWs who have not even commenced employment yet, much less received their salaries, are compelled to advance their SSS contributions. It is also noteworthy that, in fact, prior to the issuance of an OEC, a worker is technically not considered an OFW yet. The OEC serves as proof that the worker has been processed by the POEA for deployment. However, despite this, they are being compelled to prepay the required SSS contributions; otherwise, they cannot leave the country due to the absence of an OEC. This situation places an undue burden on our OFWs, who often resort to borrowing money to cover costly deployment expenses.37 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

Moreover, the ponencia also correctly pointed out that Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR is an invalid exercise of the SSC's rule-making power and is therefore ultra vires, viz:

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to only PARTIALLY GRANT the instant Petition. While the constitutionality of Section 9-B(a), (c), and (e) of Republic Act No. 11199 and its related provisions in the IRR should be upheld, Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR should be declared unconstitutional.