Supreme Court declares SSS’ 2014 premium hike as valid

The Supreme Court has declared as valid the Social Security System’s (SSS) premium hike that took effect in January 2014.

In an April 2 ruling published on Monday, the Court en banc denied for a lack of merit Kilusang Mayo Uno’s (KMU) petition questioning the validity of 2013 issuances by the Social Security Commission on a 0.6 percent increase in the SSS members’ monthly contribution rate.

KMU, labor federations, and SSS members argued that the issuances violated constitutional provisions on the protection of workers, promotion of social justice, and respect for human rights. They alleged that the issuances void for having been based on “vague and unclear” standards, and claimed that the revised ratio in contributions was “grossly unjust to the working class.”

While it found “technical infirmities” in the petition, such as the petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies and their impleading then-President Benigno Aquino III as respondent, the Court proceeded to review the issuances. It still found, however, that the petitioners’ arguments lacked merit.

The Court ruled that the petitioners were “collaterally attacking the validity” of the provisions under the Social Security Act.

“Collateral attacks on a presumably valid law are not allowed. Unless a law, rule, or act is annulled in a direct proceeding, it is presumed valid,” the Court said in a ruling penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

The decision stated that the Social Security Act is “complete in its terms” and also “contains a sufficient standard for the Social Security Commission to fix the monthly contribution rate and the minimum and maximum monthly salary credits.”

“The agency does not have to do anything except implement the provisions based on the standards and limitations provided by law,” the Court said.

It also disagreed with the petitioners’ contention that the law prohibited the contribution rate hike, and found that the increase “was not solely for the increase in members’ benefits, but also to extend actuarial life.”

The increases in the issuances were a valid exercise of police power, as they were “reasonably necessary to observe the constitutional mandate of promoting social justice under the Social Security Act,” the Court noted.

Meanwhile, the tribunal said it will not look into the argument that the contribution hike was "unduly oppressive" on the labor sector, as this would amount to inquiring into the "wisdom" of a policy by the executive branch.

The Court said it did not find the respondent officials committed grave abuse of discretion by releasing the issuances under question.

“Here, respondents were only complying with their duties under the Social Security Act when they issued the assailed issuances,” it said.

“There is no showing that respondents went beyond the powers under the law that amounts to lack of or in excess of their jurisdiction. Petitioners’ claims are unsubstantiated and, as such, merit no finding of grave abuse of discretion,” the Court added.

Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, Rosmari Carandang, and Amy Lazaro-Javier concurred with the decision.

Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza took no part and was on official business, and Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr. was on official leave while Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando was on leave at the time of the vote. —VDS, GMA News