Applicability of Republic Act No. 9946 to the Former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission

DOJ OPINION NO. 027, s. 2017 July 5, 2017 Chairperson Teresita J. Herbosa Securities and Exchange Commission SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills Quezon City Dear Chairperson Herbosa : This has reference to your request for opinion on whether Republic Act No. 9946 1 is applicable to the former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in view of the relevant provision of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, 2 as amended. HTcADC The request, it appears, was precipitated by the claim of Ms. Rhodora R. Sulit, widow of the late SEC Chairman Julio A. Sulit, Jr., to receive survivorship pension pursuant to Section 2 of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended by P.D. No. 1653, 3 and Section 3 of R.A. No. 9946, amending R.A. No. 910. You state that when P.D. 902-A, as amended, states that the Chairman of the Commission shall enjoy the retirement benefits and other privileges similar to that of the Justices of the Court of Appeals granted under existing laws and decrees or hereafter promulgated, it refers to R.A. No. 910, considering that it is the law enacted to prescribe the retirement benefits of the Justices of the Court of Appeals, among others. You also state that one of the major innovations introduced by the amendment of R.A. No. 9946 to R.A. No. 910 is the grant of pension benefits to surviving spouse of the retired justice or judge upon the justice's or judge's demise (survivorship pension benefits) as provided under Section 3, last paragraph of the said law. You allege that as a first impression, there appears a basis for granting the request considering that P.D. No. 902-A, as amended, expressly recognizes that the laws to be promulgated in the future granting retirement benefits and other privileges to the Justices of the Court of Appeals shall also be applicable to the Chairman of the Commission. Quoting Section 3-B of R.A. No. 9946, you further allege that R.A. No. 9946 has retroactive application; that the last proviso, however, states that the benefits to be granted shall be prospective, i.e. , the benefits to be received by the beneficiaries thereof shall be reckoned from the effectivity of the law, and not from the time of retirement, with regard to retirement benefits, nor from the time of death of the judge or justice, in case of death benefits, including the survivorship benefits. Moreover, you also allege that the proviso "Provided, that the benefits shall be applicable only to members of the Judiciary" cast doubt on the applicability of R.A. No. 9946 to the case of the late Chairman Sulit; that it appears from the deliberation of the said law, the legislative intent is to limit the application of R.A. No. 9946 to the members of the Judiciary; and that the new benefits prescribed by the law can be availed exclusively by the members of the Judiciary and/or their beneficiaries. CAIHTE With regret, we have to decline the opinion requested as the query involves the substantive rights of a private party, specifically Ms. Rhodora R. Sulit, widow of former SEC Chairman Julio A. Sulit, Jr., and since the opinion of the Secretary of Justice is merely advisory in nature, such opinion would not be binding upon said private parties who, if adversely affected by such opinion, may take issue therewith and contest it before the courts. As a matter of policy, therefore, the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from rendering opinion on questions which are justiciable in nature or those which may be the subject of judicial litigation. 4 Nonetheless, for your guidance and information only, we refer you to Section 3-B of Republic Act No. 9946: SEC. 3-B. The benefits under this Act shall be granted to all those who have retired prior to the effectivity of this Act: Provided , that the benefits shall be applicable only to members of the Judiciary: Provided, further , That the benefits to be granted shall be prospective. On 13 January 2010, Congress amended R.A. No. 910 and passed R.A. No. 9946. R.A. No. 9946 provided for more benefits, including survivorship pension benefits, among other. The law also provides a retroactivity provision. Basic is the rule in statutory interpretation that when the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning without attempted interpretation. 5 Known as the plain meaning rule, or verba legis, this rule, which was derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention), rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude a different construction. 6 The rationale is because the legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used the words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum , or from the words of a statute there should be no departure. 7 It is said that the debates, interpellations, and opinions expressed concerning particular provisions yield additional insight on the intent or meaning thereof ( J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration , supra .). In support of the foregoing discussion, we are quoting hereunder the records of the proceedings/deliberations of R.A. No. 9946: "REP. ESCUDERO: aScITE I think we better do something about that. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, can we anticipate, assuming we approve this, it becomes a law, can we anticipate what other groups could possibly request for a similar adjustment privilege? Because we are thinking now, just like the Magna Carta, which is one of our bills to be approved later, when the first Magna Carta was being debated on here, I then said, why not a Magna Carta for the whole Filipino people, rather than by clusters, by aggrupations. So what group could possible request for a similar privilege, Mr. Court Administrator? MR. PEREZ: I think, Mr. Chairman, Your Honor, of those who, under the existing law, have been given the privileges under 910, and what immediately comes to mind are the solicitors, the labor arbi. . . the members of the NLRC, if I'm not mistaken. These are officials of the government who have been allowed to avail of the benefits of 910. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So, I think, that's a very valid point raised by the Honorable Escudero, because we're talking of a 302 million budgetary implication and I would imagine that the computation is limited only to the judges, right? MR. PEREZ: Yes, Your Honor. THE CHAIRPERSON: Judges, okay. So, in other words, the legislative intent is focused on them. And so if that is the case, we would like to make sure that this is incorporated as a clarificatory provision in the bill that it is, if the sponsor would agree, that we will provide a provision that this is limited to that particular group no. MR. PEREZ: Yes, Your Honor. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just so we would be able to make determinable the budgetary effect of this legislation. REP. NUR G. JAAFAR: Mr. Chairman. REP. DOMOGAN: DETACa Mr. Chair, that's very correct. First, this is limited to members of the judiciary. Let me make it clear what the city court. . . ah, Supreme Court Administrator, Justice Perez, said, the decision of the Supreme Court unfortunately covers only the justices and it did not include the other judges of the then CFI, Regional Trial Court now, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Courts, which we think it is not fair. Because, look, the justices will be receiving such benefits yet those of their peers in the lower bracket in the Judiciary are not receiving such benefits, and this is the reason why this bill is filed, in order that they should likewise be included. Correct, as you said, this is, I repeat, limited to the members of the Judiciary. With respect to those possibly similarly situated that may ask similar benefits like those of the NLRC, Commissioners of the NLRC and the prosecutors office, let us see the respective laws covering them, because like the NLRC, included therein are certain benefits. Possibly we can review them also so that if they are not included, that will be the time. We can possibly amend those laws. So, this is really covering only members of the Judiciary, Mr. Chairman." We agree that retirement laws, in particular, are liberally construed in favor of the retiree because their objective is to provide for the retiree's sustenance and, hopefully, even comfort, when he no longer has the capability to earn a livelihood. The liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in order that efficiency, security, and well-being of government employees may be enhanced. Indeed, retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their humanitarian purpose. 8 However, in the instant case, the law is clear and it is the intent of the framers of the law to limit its application to the members of the Judiciary. Further, it is worthy to note that on 17 August 2015 Senate approved on third and final reading Senate Bill No. 2709 which seeks to ensure that the surviving legitimate spouse would receive all the retirement benefits due to an OSG official who retired or was in service at the time of death. Hence, there's a need for a law granting survivorship pension benefits to surviving legitimate spouse of the Chairman of the SEC. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) VITALIANO N. AGUIRRE II Secretary Footnotes 1. An Act Granting Additional Retirement, Survivorship and Other Benefits to Members of the Judiciary, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 910, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes. 2. Reorganization of the Securities and Exchange Commission with Additional Power and Placing the said Agency under the Administrative Supervision of the Office of the President. 3. Amending Sections 2, 6 and 8 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A. 4. Secretary of Justice Opinion Nos. 5 and 15, s. 2013; Nos. 56 and 57, s. 2011. 5. Ramos vs. CA , 108 SCRA 728, 733. 6. See also PNB vs. Garcia , 388 SCRA 485, 491. 7. Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC , 206 SCRA 701, 711; Sec. of Justice Opinion Nos. 105, 94 & 92, s. 2012; also Op. Nos. 59, 49 & 29, s. 2011. 8. GSIS vs. De Leon , G.R. No. 186560, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 321.