G.R. No. 253940 , October 24, 2023
BELINDA D.R. DOLERA, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Belinda Dolera is the lawful wife of the late Leonardo Dolera, a Social Security System (SSS) member who was granted a permanent total disability pension in 1980. They were married in 1988, after the onset of his disability. Upon Leonardo’s death, Belinda claimed survivorship pension benefits. The SSS denied her claim solely based on Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. 8282 (the Social Security Act), which defines a primary beneficiary for such purposes as the dependent spouse “as of the date of the member’s disability.” Since Belinda married Leonardo after his disability, she was deemed not a qualified primary beneficiary.
The case reached the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c). The ponencia declared the proviso void for violating the equal protection and due process clauses. Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, in this Concurring Opinion, fully agrees with this conclusion and elaborates on the constitutional infirmities.

ISSUE

Whether the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of R.A. No. 8282 is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection and due process clauses.

RULING

Yes, the assailed proviso is unconstitutional. Applying rational basis scrutiny, appropriate for social welfare legislation, the classification it creates fails the test of reasonableness required by the equal protection clause. The proviso distinguishes between two groups of spouses: those married to the SSS member before the member’s disability and those married after. This distinction lacks a substantial relation to the law’s objective of providing meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries. It is arbitrary to deny benefits to a surviving spouse who married a disabled member and remained in a long-term, legitimate marriage until the member’s death, merely because the marriage occurred after the disability. The classification does not effectively serve its purported purpose of preventing fraudulent marriages, as it sweeps too broadly and penalizes all post-disability marriages without distinction.
Furthermore, the proviso violates the due process clause. Following established jurisprudence, mandatory pension contributions create a vested or contractual right to benefits, which extends to the designated beneficiaries, including the dependent spouse. The proviso creates an irrebuttable presumption that spouses married after a member’s disability are ineligible, which arbitrarily deprives them of this property interest without an opportunity to prove their legitimate status and dependency. The denial of Belinda’s claim based solely on this proviso, without a determination of her actual dependency, underscores this constitutional violation. Consequently, the Petition is granted.