central bank employees v bsp.doc

8/10/2019 central bank employees v BSP.doc

1/178

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 148208 December 15, 2004

CENTRAL BANK !o" B#!$%o Se!&r#' !$ P('()(!#*+ EMPLOEES ASSOC-AT-ON,-NC., petitioner,vs.BANGKO SENTRAL NG P-L-P-NAS #! &/e EECUT-E SECRETAR,respondents.

D E C I S I N

PUNO,J.

Can a provision of la!, initiall" valid, beco#e *3b*e3e!&'unconstitutional, on the $roundthat its co!&(!3e o)er#&(o!!ould violate the e%ual protection of the la!& 'e hold that!ith the passa$e of the subse%uent la!s a#endin$ the charter of seven ()* other$overn#ental financial institutions (+Is*, the continued operation of the lastproviso ofSection -(c*, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.* No. )/0, constitutes invidious discri#inationon the2,664 r#!%7#!7('e em)'oee*of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas(BSP*.

-.

T/e C#*e

irst the facts.

n 1ul" 0, -220, R.A. No. )/0 (the Ne! Central Ban3 Act* too3 effect. It abolished the oldCentral Ban3 of the Philippines, and created a ne! BSP.

n 1une 4, 566-, al#ost e($/& e#r* #&erthe effectivit" of R.A. No. )/0, petitionerCentral Ban3 (no! BSP* E#plo"ees Association, Inc., filed a petition for prohibition a$ainstBSP and the E7ecutive Secretar" of the ffice of the President, to restrain respondents fro#

further i#ple#entin$ the lastproviso in Section -(c*, Article II of R.A. No. )/0, on the$round that it is unconstitutional.

Article II, Section -(c* of R.A. No. )/0 provides8

Section -. Exercise of Authority9 In the e7ercise of its authorit", the Monetar" Board shall8

777 777 777


2/178

(c* establish a hu#an resource #ana$e#ent s"ste# !hich shall $overn theselection, hirin$, appoint#ent, transfer, pro#otion, or dis#issal of all personnel.Such s"ste# shall ai# to establish professionalis# and e7cellence at all levels ofthe Bangko Sentralin accordance !ith sound principles of #ana$e#ent.

A co#pensation structure, based on :ob evaluation studies and !a$e surve"s and

sub:ect to the Board;s approval, shall be instituted as an inte$ral co#ponent ofthe Bangko Sentral'shu#an resource develop#ent pro$ra#8 Provided,ationAct?.Provided, however, T/#& com)e!*#&(o! #! "#$e *&r3c&3re oem)'oee* "/o*e )o*(&(o!* #'' 3!er *#'#r $r#e 16 #! be'o" */#'' be (!#ccor#!ce "(&/ &/e r#&e* )re*cr(be 3!er Re)3b'(c Ac& No.9:58.=emphasis supplied?

ation a#on$ the BSP ran39and9fileand resulted in the $ross disparit" bet!een their co#pensation and that of the BSPofficers;.)

In su#, )e&(&(o!er )o*(&*that the classification is not reasonable but arbitrar" andcapricious, and violates the e%ual protection clause of the Constitution.4Petitioner alsostresses8 (a* that R.A. No. )/0 has a separabilit" clause, !hich !ill allo! the declaration ofthe unconstitutionalit" of theprovisoin %uestion !ithout affectin$ the other provisions and(b* the ur$enc" and propriet" of the petition, as so#e 2,664 BSP r#!%7#!7('e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt1


3/178

em)'oee*have been )re=3(ce *(!ce 1664!hen theproviso!as i#ple#ented.Petitioner concludes that8 (-* since the ine%uitableprovisohas no force and effect of la!,respondents; i#ple#entation of such a#ounts to lac3 of :urisdiction and (5* it has noappeal nor an" other plain, speed" and ade%uate re#ed" in the ordinar" course e7ceptthrou$h this petition for prohibition, !hich this Court should ta3e co$ni>ance of, considerin$the transcendental i#portance of the le$al issue involved.2

Respondent BSP, in its co##ent,-6contends that the provision does not violate the e%ualprotection clause and can stand the constitutional test, provided it is construed in har#on"!ith other provisions of the sa#e la!, such as fiscal and ad#inistrative autono#" of BSP,and the #andate of the Monetar" Board to establish professionalis# and e7cellence at alllevels in accordance !ith sound principles of #ana$e#ent.

E PRESENT STANDARDS O? E@UAL PROTECT-ON,SECT-ON 15c+, ART-CLE -- O? R.A. NO. :95 -S AL-D.

1urisprudential standards for e%ual protection challen$es indubitabl" sho! that theclassification created b" the %uestionedproviso, on its face and in its operation, bears noconstitutional infir#ities.

It is settled in constitutional la! that the e%ual protection clause does not prevent the@e$islature fro# establishin$ classes of individuals or ob:ects upon !hich different rulesshall operate 9 so lon$ as the classification is not unreasonable. As held in (c&or(#!o


4/178


5/178

of a la!, there #ust be a clear and une%uivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtfuland e%uivocal breach.50

B.


6/178

the la! !as set aside because its continued operation !ould be $rossl" discri#inator" andlead to the oppression of the creditors.


7/178

Co#petitive #otor carriers, thou$h creatin$ $reater ha>ards, !ere not sub:ected to si#ilarliabilit" because the" !ere !o& e& (! e(*&e!ce !hen the statutes !ere enacted.


8/178

i#partial in appearance, "et, if it per#its of un:ust and ille$al discri#ination, it is!ithin the constitutional prohibitionK.. In other !ords, statutes #a" be ad:ud$edunconstitutional because of their effect in operationK. If a la! has the effect ofden"in$ the e%ual protection of the la! it is unconstitutional. K.0/(emphasissupplied, citations omitted

. E!#c&me!& o R.A. No*. :60: F 8282 F 8286 F 8261 F 852 F 8:9F 602 co!*e3e!&(#' 3!co!*&(&3&(o!#'(& o c/#''e!$eproviso.

Accordin$ to petitioner, the lastproviso of Section -(c*, Article II of R.A. No. )/0 is alsoviolative of the e%ual protection clause because after it !as enacted, the charters of the+SIS, @BP, DBP and SSS !ere also a#ended, but the personnel of the latter +Is !ere alle7e#pted fro# the covera$e of the [email protected])


9/178

private sector and shall be sub:ect to periodic revie! b" the Board no #ore thanonce ever" t!o (5* "ears !ithout pre:udice to "earl" #erit revie!s or increasesbased on productivit" and profitabilit". T/e B#!% */#'' &/ereore be eem)& rome(*&(!$ '#"*, r3'e* #! re$3'#&(o!* o! com)e!*#&(o!, )o*(&(o! c'#**((c#&(o!#! 3#'((c#&(o! *!#r*.It shall ho!ever endeavor to #a3e its s"ste#confor# as closel" as possible !ith the principles under Republic Act No. /)4.

(emphasis supplied*

777 777 777

2. SSS R.A. No. 8282+

Section -. =A#endin$ R.A. No. --/-, Section 0(c*?8

777 777 777

(c*


10/178

777 777 777

Sec. 0. Po!ers and "unctions of the Board of #rustees $


11/178


12/178

passa$e of ei$ht other la!s 9 be&"ee! &/e r#!%7#!7('e o &/e BSP #! &/e *e


13/178


14/178


15/178

BSP !as the first +I $ranted SS@ e7e#ption and (b* the subse%uent e7e#ptions of other+Is did not distin$uish bet!een the officers and the ran39and9file it is patent that &/ec'#**((c#&(o! m#e be&"ee! &/e BSP r#!%7#!7('e #! &/o*e o &/e o&/er *e


16/178

potentiall" ha>ardous dut". Con$ress !as acutel" a!are of the peculiar disabilitiescaused b" #ilitar" service, in conse%uence of !hich #ilitar" service#en have aspecial need for read:ust#ent benefitsK(citations omitted*

In the case at bar, it is precisel" the fact that #* re$#r* &/e eem)&(o! rom &/e SSL,&/ere #re !o c/#r#c&er(*&(c* )ec3'(#r o!' &o &/e *e


17/178

total e7e#ption of the seven other +Is fro# the SS@ !hen such !as !ithheld fro# theBSP. A'(%e* #re be(!$ &re#&e #* 3!#'(%e* "(&/o3& #! r#&(o!#' b#*(*.

A$ain, it #ust be e#phasi>ed that the e%ual protection clause does not de#and absolutee%ualit" b3& (& re3(re* &/#& #'' )er*o!* */#'' be &re#&e #'(%e, 3!er '(%ec(rc3m*!ce* #! co!(&(o!* bo&/ #* &o )r(


18/178

ro# its traditional #odest role, e3#' )ro&ec&(o!b3r$eo!e (!&o # m#=or(!&er


19/178


20/178

relationship of proportionalit" bet!een the #eans e#plo"ed and the ai# sou$ht to berealised./2B3& o


21/178


22/178

Article on Social 1ustice and u#an Ri$hts e7horts Con$ress to $ive hi$hest priorit"to the enact#ent of #easures that protect and enhance the ri$ht of all people tohu#an di$nit", reduce social, econo#ic, and political ine%ualities.


23/178


24/178

:ustification that those !ith less privile$e in life should have #ore in la!.-65And theobli$ation to afford protection to labor is incu#bent not onl" on the le$islative and e7ecutivebranches but also on the :udiciar" to translate this pled$e into a livin$ realit".-60Social:ustice calls for the hu#ani>ation of la!s and the e%uali>ation of social and econo#ic forcesb" the State so that :ustice in its rational and ob:ectivel" secular conception #a" at least beappro7i#ated.-6

.

A ?(!#' or

inall", concerns have been raised as to the propriet" of a rulin$ voidin$ the challen$edprovision. It has been proffered that the re#ed" of petitioner is not !ith this Court, but !ithCon$ress, !hich alone has the po!er to erase an" ine%uit" perpetrated b" R.A. No. )/0.Indeed, a bill proposin$ the e7e#ption of the BSP ran39and9file fro# the SS@ hassupposedl" been filed.

Gnder #ost circu#stances, the Court !ill e7ercise :udicial restraint in decidin$ %uestions of

constitutionalit", reco$ni>in$ the broad discretion $iven to Con$ress in e7ercisin$ itsle$islative po!er. 1udicial scrutin" !ould be based on the rational basis test, and thele$islative discretion !ould be $iven deferential treat#ent. -6

B3& ( &/e c/#''e!$e &o &/e *&3&e (* )rem(*e o! &/e e!(#' o # 3!#me!' r($/&,or &/e )er)e&3#&(o! o )re=3(ce #$#(!*& )er*o!* #


25/178

the Convention that drafted the -20 Constitution 9 declared, as earl" as 1ul" -,-20/, that (i*n ti#es of social dis%uietude or political e7cite#ent, the $reatland#ar3s of the Constitution are apt to be for$otten or #arred, if not entirel"obliterated. In cases of conflict, the :udicial depart#ent is the onl" constitutionalor$an !hich can be called upon to deter#ine the proper allocation of po!ersbet!een the several depart#ents of the $overn#ent.-6)(citations omitted.

emphasis supplied*

In the case at bar, the challen$edprovisooperates on the basis of the salar" $rade orofficer9e#plo"ee status.-& (* #%(! &o # (*&(!c&(o! b#*e o! eco!om(c c'#** #!*&3*,!ith the hi$her $rades as recipients of a benefit specificall" !ithheld fro# the lo!er$rades. fficers of the BSP no! receive hi$her co#pensation pac3a$es that are co#petitive!ith the industr", !hile the poorer, lo!9salaried e#plo"ees are li#ited to the ratesprescribed b" the SS@. ,A>cuna, ario, 11., concur.

Pangani0an, arpio, arpio$8orales, and +arcia, ;;,see dissentin$.orona, and alle5o, Sr, ;;,on leave.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntmcnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntaphttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntachttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntmcnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntaphttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntachttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fntccm


26/178

CONCURR-NG OP-N-ON

C>-CO7NAAR-O,J."

Does Sec. -(c*, Article II, Republic Act No. /)0,-!hich allo!s the e7e#ption of BSPe#plo"ees occup"in$ salar" $rade (S+* 56 and above fro# the covera$e of Rep. Act No.

/)45result in a denial of petitioner;s constitutional ri$ht to e%ual protection of the la!&

I sub#it that it does and said provision should therefore be declared unconstitutional on the$round that the division bet!een BSP e#plo"ees covered fro# S+ -2 do!n and fro# S+ 56up is purel" arbitrar". Even $iven the !ide discretion vested in Con$ress to #a3eclassifications, it is nonetheless clear that the la!#a3in$ bod" abused its discretion in#a3in$ such classification.

It is not disputed that all that is re%uired for a valid classification is that it #ust bereasonable, ie, that it #ust be based on substantial distinctions !hich #a3e for realdifferences it #ust be $er#ane to the purpose of the la! it #ust not be li#ited to e7istin$conditions and it #ust appl" e%uall" to each #e#ber of the class.0

In the instant case, the classification !as :ustified on the need of the BSP to co#pete in thelabor #ar3et for econo#ists, accountants, la!"ers, e7perts in securit", printin$, co##ercialand rural ban3in$, financial inter#ediation fund #ana$e#ent, and other hi$hl" technicaland professional personnel,!hich it could not do unless personnel occup"in$ top positionsare e7e#pted fro# the covera$e of Rep. Act No. /)4, the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!.

Gnder Rep. Act No. /)4, ho!ever, professional supervisor" positions are covered b" S+ 2to S+ 00 !hich includes8

(R*esponsible positions of a #ana$erial character involvin$ the e7ercise of#ana$e#ent functions such as plannin$, or$ani>in$, directin$, coordinatin$,

controllin$ and overseein$ !ithin dele$ated authorit" the activities of anor$ani>ation, a unit thereof or of a $roup, re%uirin$ so#e de$ree of professional,technical or scientific 3no!led$e and e7perience, application of #ana$erial orsupervisor" s3ills re%uired to carr" out their basic duties and responsibilities involvin$functional $uidance and control, leadership, as !ell as line supervision. ed field usuall"ac%uired fro# co#pletion of a bachelor;s de$ree or hi$her de$ree courses.


27/178

Classification in la! is the $roupin$ of personsOob:ects because the" a$ree !ith one anotherin certain particulars and differ fro# others in those sa#e particulars. In the instant case,ho!ever, S+ 56 and up do not differ fro# S+ -2 and do!n in ter#s of technical andprofessional e7pertise needed as the entire ran$e of positions all re%uire intense andthorou$h 3no!led$e of a speciali>ed field usuall" ac%uired fro# co#pletion of a bachelor;sde$ree or hi$her courses.

Conse%uentl", if BSP needs an e7e#ption fro# Rep. Act No. /)4 for 3e" positions in orderthat it #a" hire the best and bri$htest econo#ists, accountants, la!"ers and other technicaland professional people, the e7e#ption #ust not be$in onl" in S+ 56.

Gnder the circu#stances, &/e c3&7o )o(!&, &/e $re#& (ation @a! ofthe Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP* ran3 and file e#plo"ees (!ith Salar" +rade -2 andbelo!*. Neither a# I a$ainst increases in their pa". I si#pl" sub#it that (-* the factual
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt7mcnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#rntaphttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt7mcnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#rntap


28/178

#ilieu of this case does not sho! a denial of e%ual protection, (5* the theor" of relativeconstitutionalit" does not co#e into pla", and (0* petitioner should have addressed itsplaint, not to this Court, but to Con$ress in the first instance. - #m co!(e!& &/#& $(


29/178

ook.-5


30/178

the line of traffic of railroad carriers.52Jet the burden of e7penses and penalties that !ererendered in favor of individuals !ho !ere neither shippers nor passen$ers !as i#posed onl"on railroad carriers.06

In addition, the railroad carriers !ould be held liable for attorne";s fees and double thevalue of the ani#als 3illed in their rail!a"s, !ithout even re%uirin$ the plaintiffs !ho had

sued the# to prove the ne$li$ence of such carriers in operatin$ their e%uip#ent.0-Althou$hit !as ar$ued that #otor9driven vehicles had no authorit" to fence on state and count"hi$h!a"s over !hich the" operated, the le$islature could nevertheless authori>e and re%uirethe# to provide si#ilar protection or, in default thereof, to suffer si#ilar penalties that!ere incidental to usin$ such public roads for $eneratin$ profit and servin$ the public.05

=ouisville.00onin$ ordinance !hich had li#ited the business use of its realt", locall" 3no!n as thePlaza, onl" to the par3in$ of auto#obiles and its incidental services.6


31/178

inall", 8urphy v Edmonds./An auto#obile driver and her husband brou$ht action a$ainsta tractor9trailer driver and his e#plo"er and sou$ht da#a$es for the severe in:uries she hadsustained in a collision. Raised in issue #ainl" !as the constitutionalit" of the statutor" capon nonecono#ic da#a$es in personal in:ur" actions.)

Affir#in$ the :ud$#ent of the Court of Special Appeals re:ectin$ all challen$es to the validit"

of the la!, the Court of Appeals of Mar"land held that there !as no irrationalit",arbitrariness, or violation of e%ual protection in the le$islative classification dra!n bet!een(-* the less seriousl" in:ured tort clai#ants !hose nonecono#ic da#a$es !ere less than thestatutor" cap and (5* the #ore seriousl" in:ured tort clai#ants !hose nonecono#icda#a$es !ere $reater than, and thus sub:ect to, the statutor" cap.4Althou$h no e7presse%ual protection clause could be found in Mar"land;s Constitution, the due process clausetherein nevertheless e#bodied e%ual protection to the sa#e e7tent as that found in theourteenth A#end#ent2of the federal Constitution.6

Indeed, the ri$ht to recover full da#a$es for a nonecono#ic in:ur" !as reco$ni>ed b"co##on la! even before the adoption of the state;s Constitution, but the said courtdeclared that there !as no vested interest in an" rule ordained b" co##on

la!.

-

Concludin$ that onl" the traditional rational 0asis test should be used, the appellatecourt also re:ected the lo!er court;s vie! of the ri$ht to press a clai# for pain and sufferin$as an important right re%uirin$ a heightened scrutiny test of the le$islativeclassification.5Gnder the rational 0asis test, such le$islative classification en:o"ed astron$ presu#ption of constitutionalit" and, not bein$ clearl" arbitrar", could not thereforebe invalidated.0

Moreover, the la! !as an econo#ic response to a le$islativel" perceived crisis concernin$not onl" the availabilit", but also the cost of liabilit" insurance in the state.Puttin$ astatutor" cap on nonecono#ic da#a$es !as reasona0ly related to a legitimate legislativeo05ective,for it led to a $reater ease in the calculation of insurance pre#iu#s, thus#a3in$ the #ar3et #ore attractive to insurers. Also, it ulti#atel" reduced the cost of suchpre#iu#s and #ade insurance #ore affordable to individuals and or$ani>ations that

perfor# needed #edical services./

?rom &/e ore$o(!$ (*c3**(o!, (& (* (mme(#&e' e


32/178

raised therein, it felt that e7e#ptin$ special da#a$es appeared reasonable and li3el" to beapplied, follo!in$ an earlier rulin$ in another case.2

Moreover, the facts of both 8edilland ookare not at all a3in to so9called changedconditions pro#ptin$ the declarations of constitutionalit" in the for#er andunconstitutionalit" in the latter. Such altered circumstances or changed conditions in

these t!o cases refer to the non9e7e#ption of special da#a$es 99 a sub:ect #atter distinctand separable, althou$h covered b" the sa#e assailed statute. In fact, ookprecisel"e#phasi>ed that !here a statute is not inherently unconstitutional, it may 0e foundconstitutional as applied to some separa0le su05ect matters, and unconstitutional as appliedto others/6In other !ords, it !as the applicationof the contested provision therein to anentirel" different and separable sub:ect #atter 99 not the contested provision itself 99 that!as declared unconstitutional, but the statute itself !as not inherentl" unconstitutional tobe$in !ith.

E%uall" i#portant, 6ashvilles3irted the issue on constitutionalit". ernon, these changed conditions !ere dee#ed to be the econo#ic chan$es in the-26s, throu$h !hich the nor#al business use of the land !as undul" li#ited b" the >onin$ordinance that !as intended to address the acute traffic proble# in the co##unit".

6ashvillesi#pl" too3 :udicial notice of the chan$e in conditions !hich, to$ether !ith thecontinued i#position of statutor" char$es and fees, caused deprivation of propert" !ithoutdue process of la!.Atlantic, =ouisvilleand>ernonall relied upon 6ashville, but then !entfurther b" renderin$ their respective contested provisions unconstitutional, because 99 in theapplication of such provisions under changed conditions 99 those si#ilarl" situated !ere nolon$er treated ali3e.

inall", 8urphy99 obviousl" #isplaced because it #ade no reference at all to the %uotedsentence in theponencia99 even upheld the validit" of its contested provision.


33/178

the #eans e#plo"ed are not reasonabl" necessar" for the acco#plish#ent of the statute;spurpose, and the" beco#e undul" oppressive upon individuals./5As 1ustice Brandeisstresses in6ashville, it may not 0e exerted ar0itrarily or unreasona0ly/0

In the case before us toda", the assailed provision can be considered a police #easure thatre$ulates the inco#e of BSP e#plo"ees. Indisputabl", the re$ulation of such inco#e affects

the public !elfare, because it concerns not onl" these e#plo"ees, but also the public in$eneral 99 fro# !hose various credits the ban3s earn their inco#e, the CB $enerates itsrevenues, and eventuall" these e#plo"ees $et their salaries and other e#olu#ents.

Additionall", !ith the passa$e of RAs /)4 and )/0, the #eans e#plo"ed b" the State toacco#plish its ob:ectives are not undul" oppressive. T/e #re (! #c& re#*o!#b'!ece**#r, !o& o!' &o #&&r#c& &/e be*& #! br($/&e*& b#!% re$3'#&or )er*o!!e',b3& #'*o &o e*b'(*/ )roe**(o!#'(*m #! ece''e!ce "(&/(! &/e BSP (! #ccor#!ce"(&/ *o3! )r(!c()'e* o m#!#$eme!&. No&/(!$, &/ereore, (* #rb(&r#r (! &/e#**#('e )ro


34/178

+rantin$ gratia argumentithat the cited cases are to be considered bindin$ precedents inour :urisdiction,6ashville99 the onl" one federal in character 99 does not even #a3e acate$orical declaration on constitutionalit". urther#ore, 8urphy#aintains that ?s@imply0ecause a legal principle is part of the common la! x x x does not give it any greaterdegree of insulation from legislative change)6Co##on la!, after all, is a gro!ing andever$changing system of legal principles and theories x x x)-

Ever" statute is presu#ed constitutional.)5es that the court's po!er to declare a statuteunconstitutional should 0e exercised !ith extreme caution and only !hen a0solutelynecessary)Althou$h that case continues b" sa"in$ that unless it is inherentl"unconstitutional, a la! must stand or fall x x x not upon assumptions the court #a" #a3e,theponenciais still dauntless in rel"in$ thereon to support its ar$u#ents.

#utter *oes $ot Even %ppl!

A$ain !ith due respect, theponencia's citation of a local case, 9utter,)/

is alsoinappropriate. In the said case, appellant instituted an action to recover the balance, andinterest thereon, of a contract of sale entered into barel" four #onths prior to the outbrea3of the Second 'orld 'ar.))


35/178

In star3 contrast, the contested proviso in the instant case is not a re#edial #easure. It isnot sub:ect to a period !ithin !hich a ri$ht of action or a re#ed" is suspended. Since thereason for the la! still su0sists, the la! itself including the challenged proviso mustcontinue in existence and operation

#elative Constitutionalit!

$ot Based on Positive +aw

Appl"in$ the concept of relative constitutionalitystron$l" advocated in theponencia,therefore, not onl" $oes be"ond the para#eters of traditional constitutionalis#, but alsofinds no e7press basis in positive la!.4)'hile it has been asserted that a statute valid!hen enacted may 0ecome invalid 0y change in conditions to !hich it is applied,44thepresent case has sho!n no such chan$e in conditions that !ould !arrant the invalidation oftheassailed provisionif applied under such conditions. ence, no se#blance of constitutionali#puissance, other than its con:ured possibilit", can be seen. -n a constitutional order thatcommands respect for coe7ual 0ranches of government, speculation 0y the 5udiciary0ecomes incendiary and deserves no respecta0le place in our 5udicial chronicles


36/178

if an". I repeat, I a# not a$ainst e7e#ption fro# the SS@ of Ban$3o Sentral e#plo"ees !ithsalar" $rades -2 and belo!. Neither a# I a$ainst increases in their pa". o!ever, it isCon$ress, not this Court, that should provide a solution to their predica#ent, at least in thefirst instance.


37/178


38/178

Moreover, the e7tent of da#a$e or pre:udice inflicted upon the BSP ran3 and file e#plo"eesas a result of the proviso is not sho!n b" an" evidence on record. Indeed, neither thepetitioner nor theponenciade#onstrate the in:uries sustained.-50


39/178

+iven the current status of these pendin$ bills, the ar$u#ents raised b" petitioner a$ainstthe assailed provision beco#e all the #ore tenuous and a#orphous. - feel !e should leavethat provision untouched, and instead 5ust accord proper courtesy to our legislators todetermine at the proper time and in the manner they deem 0est the appropriate content ofany modifications to itBesides, there is an o#nipresent presu#ption of constitutionalit" inever" le$islative enact#ent.-0No confutation of the proviso !as ever sho!n before none

should be considered no!.

Congress 0illing

to Perform *ut!

ar fro# bein$ re#iss in its dut", Con$ress is in fact presentl" deliberatin$ upon B 66-50,!hich precisel" see3s to a#end RA )/0 b", inter alia, e7e#ptin$ fro# the SS@-0/allpositions in the BSP.-0)Accor(!$', &/(* Co3r& */o3' !o& )reem)& Co!$re**,e*)ec(#'' "/e! &/e '#&&er /#* #'re# */o"! (&* "(''(!$!e** #! #b('(& &o )erorm(&* co!*&(&3&(o!#' 3&.-04After all, petitioner has not proven an" e7tre#e ur$enc" for thisCourt to shove Con$ress aside in ter#s of providin$ the proper solution. @a!#a3in$ is not apool this Court should !ade into.


40/178

Even if the #atter of ur$enc" is set aside for the nonce, and the Court e7ercises its po!er of:udicial revie!-6over acts of the le$islature,--I respectfull" sub#it that the Petition shouldstill be dis#issed because the assailed provision;s continued operation !ill not result in adenial of e%ual protection.

Neither the passa$e of RA )/0 nor its i#ple#entation has been committed !ith grave

a0use of discretion amounting to lack or excess of 5urisdiction-5Ever" statute is intendedb" the le$islature to operate no further than may 0e necessary to effectuate-0its specificpurpose. In the absence of a clear findin$ as to its arbitrar", !hi#sical or capriciousapplication, the assailed provision cannot be struc3 do!n as violative of the funda#entalla!.

Moreover, ?u@nder the 'enrolled 0ill doctrine,;-the signing of a 0ill 0y the Speaker of theouse and the Senate President and the certification of the ?s@ecretaries of 0oth ouses ofongress that it !as passed, are conclusive-not only of its provisions 0ut also of its dueenactment-/It is therefore futile to !elter in the thou$ht that the ori$inal and a#endedversions of the correspondin$ bill have no reference to the proviso in %uestion.-)loordeliberations are either e7pansive or restrictive. Bills filed cannot be e7pected to re#ain

static the" trans#ute in for# and substance. 'hatever doubts there #a" be as to thevalidit" of an" provision therein #ust necessaril" be resolved in its favor.

Brief Bac1ground of the

Equal Protection Clause

Despite the e$alitarian co##it#ent in the Declaration of Independence that all men arecreated e7ual, the fra#ers of the ori$inal Constitution of the Gnited States o#itted an"constitutional rule of e%ual protection. Not until -4/4, !hen the ourteenth A#end#entthereto !as ratified b" the le$islatures of the several states of the Gnion,-4did the conceptof e%ual protection have a constitutional basis-2and not until the #odern era did theGnited States Supre#e Court $ive it endurin$ constitutional si$nificance.

ro# its inception, therefore, the e%ual protection clause in the 0road and 0enignprovisions of the "ourteenth Amendment-/6alread" sou$ht to place all persons similarlysituated upon a plane of e7uality and to render it impossi0le for any class to o0tainpreferred treatment-/-Its ori$inal understandin$ !as the proscription onl" of certaindiscri#inator" acts based on race,-/5althou$h its proper construction, !hen called to theattention of the GS Supre#e Court in the Slau$hter9ouse Cases, first involved e7clusiveprivile$es.-/0Eventuall", other disfavored bases of $overn#ental action !ere identified.@abeled as #orall" irrelevant traits, gender, illegitimacyand alienage!ere included in thislist.


41/178

limitations in favor of personal rights formulated in the ?CS@ onstitution and itsamendments, and !hich exist rather 0y inference and the general spirit of the ?CS@onstitution, and except those express provisions of the ?CS@ onstitution !hich prohi0itongress from passing la!s in their contravention under any circumstances x x x-)6Bein$one such li#itation in favor of personal ri$hts enshrined in the ourteenth A#end#ent,e%ual protection is thus dee#ed e7tended to our :urisdiction.

Notabl", 1ustice Malcol# hi#self said that the constitutional la! of Spain, then in effect, !asentirely a0rogated 0y the change of sovereignty-)-As a result, it !as the constitutionalla! of the Gnited States that !as transposed to our fled$lin$ political and le$al s"ste#.


42/178

All these conditions are #et in the present case.


43/178


44/178

appearance, "et, if it is applied and ad#inistered b" public authorit" !ith an evil e"e and anune%ual hand, so as practicall" to #a3e un:ust and ille$al discri#inations bet!een personsin si#ilar circu#stances, #aterial to their ri$hts, the denial of e%ual :ustice is still !ithin theprohibition of the =C?onstitution.55


45/178


46/178

Con$ress is in fact presentl" deliberatin$ upon possible a#end#ents to the assailedprovision. Since there is no %uestion that it validl" e7ercised its po!er and did not $ravel"abuse its discretion !hen it enacted the la!, its !ill #ust be sustained. Gnder the doctrineof separation of po!ers !ith conco#itant respect for coe%ual and coordinate branches of$overn#ent, this Court has neither the authorit" nor the co#petence to create or a#endla!s.

#hird, the assailed provision passes the three9tiered standard of revie! for e%ual protection.It is both a social and an econo#ic #easure rationall" related to a $overn#ental end that isnot prohibited. Since salar" $rade, class of position, and $overn#ent e#plo"#ent are notfunda#ental or constitutional ri$hts, and non9e7e#pt $overn#ent e#plo"ees or theirfinancial need are not suspect classes, the $overn#ent is not at all re%uired to sho! aco#pellin$ state interest to :ustif" the classification #ade.


47/178


48/178

le$islation that !ill address the issue raised b" petitioner and clear the proviso ofan"possi0leorperceived infrin$e#ent of the e%ual protection clause. A& &/e


49/178


50/178

structure of $overn#ent e#plo"ees si#ilarl" situated. Such rationali>ation, ho!ever, is notthe function of the Court. Even as a practical #atter, this Court does not have the necessar"data to rationali>e the e7e#ptions of all $overn#ent a$encies fro# the SS@.


51/178

le$islate a ne! la! that brin$s the BSP ran39andfile e#plo"ees to a ne! situation. Clearl",the #utterdoctrine does not appl" to the present case.

Erro!eo3* C'#**((c#&(o! o BSP #* G?-S(m('#r &o LBP, DBP #! O&/er*

GC #re G?-* b3& #re !o& re$3'#&or #$e!c(e*. BSP #! PD-C #re G?-* b3& #re #'*ore$3'#&or #$e!c(e* =3*& '(%e o&/er $o


52/178

CARP-O MORALES,J.

Is bein$ an e#plo"ee of a +overn#ent !ned or Controlled Corporation (+CC* or a+overn#ent inancial Institution (+I* a reasonable and sufficient basis for e7e#ption fro#the co#pensation and position classification s"ste# for all $overn#ent personnel providedin Republic Act No. /)4,-entitled Co#pensation and Position Classification Act of -242,

also 3no!n as the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!&

ation @a!*, a#endin$ PresidentialDecree No. 24 (the ld Salar" Standardi>ation @a!*, !as enacted5in response to the#andate to provide for a standardi>ed co#pensation scale for all $overn#ent e#plo"ees,includin$ those e#plo"ed in +CCs, under Section , Article IH9B, of the Constitution8

Sec. . ation of co#pensation of

$overn#ent officials and e#plo"ees, includin$ those in $overn#ent9o!ned orcontrolled corporations !ith ori$inal charters, ta3in$ into account the nature of theresponsibilities pertainin$ to, and the %ualifications re%uired for their positions.

ation Plan of -2)5.0Part III,Chapter II, Article II of the latter stated8

Article II 9 9eexamination of the


53/178

positions covered b" the 'APC Plans as base (-66Q*, is as follo!s8 DBP 9 560Q,CB 9 -2/Q, +SIS 9-)Q, SSS 9 -6Q, and N'SA 9 ---Q.

ation @a! is to provide e%ual pa" forsubstantiall" e%ual !or3 and to base differences in pa" upon substantive differences induties and responsibilities, and %ualification re%uire#ents of the positions, !hile $ivin$ due

re$ard to, a#on$ others, prevailin$ rates in the private sector for co#parable !or38

SECation @a! applies to all positions, !hether elective or appointive !ithinthe entire len$th and breadth of the Civil Service includin$ those in the +CCs and +Is8

Sec. . Covera$e. T/e Com)e!*#&(o! #! Po*(&(o! C'#**((c#&(o! S*&em/ere(! )ro


54/178

c. Class (of position*


55/178

r. Salar" or 'a$e Ad:ust#ent A salar" or !a$e increase to!ards the #ini#u# ofthe $rade, or an increase fro# a non9prescribed rate to a prescribed rate !ithin the$rade.

s. Salar" or 'a$e +rade ation @a! e7pressl" repealed all la!s,decrees, e7ecutive orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or parts thereof thate7e#pted $overn#ent a$encies, includin$ +CCs and +Is fro# the covera$e of the ne!Co#pensation and Position Classification S"ste#8

Sec. -/. Repeal of Special Salar" @a!s and Re$ulations. All la!s, decrees,e7ecutive orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or parts thereof, thate7e#pt a$encies fro# the covera$e of the S"ste#, or that authori>e and fi7 positionclassification, salaries, pa" rates or allo!ances of specified positions, or $roups ofofficials and e#plo"ees or of a$encies, !hich are inconsistent !ith the S"ste#,includin$ the proviso under Section 5, and Section -/ of Presidential Decree No. 24are hereb" repealed.

ation @a!* as !ell as under therespective +CC and +I charters, !ere repealed4, sub:ect to the non9di#inution provisionof Section -5.2As a result, the $eneral rule is that all $overn#ent e#plo"ees, includin$e#plo"ees of +CCs and +Is, are covered b" the Co#pensation Classification S"ste#provided for b" the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!.

Nonetheless, Con$ress ac3no!led$ed the need of +CCs and +Is perfor#in$ proprietar"functions to #aintain co#petitive salaries co#parable to the private sector !ith respectto 3e" top9level positions in order not to lose these personnel to the private sector.


56/178

hereb" directed to prepare the Inde7 of ccupational Services to be $uided b" theBench#ar3 Position Schedule prescribed hereunder and the follo!in$ factors8 (-* theeducation and e7perience re%uired to perfor# the duties and responsibilities of thepositions (5* the nature and co#ple7it" of the !or3 to be perfor#ed (0* the 3ind ofsupervision received (* #ental andOor ph"sical strain re%uired in the co#pletion ofthe !or3 (* nature and e7tent of internal and e7ternal relationships (/* 3ind of

supervision e7ercised ()* decision9#a3in$ responsibilit" (4* responsibilit" foraccurac" of records and reports (2* accountabilit" for funds, properties ande%uip#ent and (-6* hardship, ha>ard and personal ris3 involved in the :ob.

7 7 7

-! !o c#*e */#'' &/e *#'#r o &/e c/#(rm#!, )re*(e!&, $e!er#' m#!#$er or#m(!(*&r#&or, #! &/e bo#r o (rec&or* o $oation @a!, to !it8

SEC. -. Exercise of Authority. 9 In the e7ercise of its authorit", the Monetar" Boardshall8

7 7 7

(c* establish a hu#an resource #ana$e#ent s"ste# !hich shall $overn theselection, hirin$, appoint#ent, transfer, pro#otion, or dis#issal of all personnel.Such s"ste# shall ai# to establish professionalis# and e7cellence at all levels ofthe Bangko Sentralin accordance !ith sound principles of #ana$e#ent.

A com)e!*#&(o! *&r3c&3re, b#*e o! =ob eation @a!.


57/178

ation @a!. ation @a! !hich, for all intents and purposes is a $eneral la! applicable to all$overn#ent e#plo"ees. As such, the provision e7e#ptin$ certain BSP e#plo"ees fro# itscovera$e #ust be strictl" construed.-)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt10ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt11ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt12ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt13ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt14ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt15ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt16ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt17ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt10ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt11ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt12ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt13ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt14ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt15ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt16ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt17ccm


58/178

T/e C#*e or Re*)o!e!& Bang1o Sentral

@i3e!ise advancin$ the vie! that the assailed proviso is constitutional, respondent BSPar$ues that Con$ress, in passin$ the Ne! Central Ban3 Act, has in fact deter#ined thatthere are substantial reasons for classif"in$ BSP e#plo"ees into those covered b" the Salar"Standardi>ation @a! and those not covered b" the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!.-4

o!ever, BSP additionall" clai#s that !hile the assailed proviso is constitutional, the#anner b" !hich it is i#ple#ented #a" $ive rise to the %uestion of constitutionalinfir#it".-2It thus proffers that the assailed provision should be interpreted to$ether !iththe other provisions of ation @a! as a conse%uence of the e7e#ption of the ran3 andfile e#plo"ees of the @BP, DBP, SSS and +SIS.

S!#r* or E3#' Pro&ec&(o! A!#'*(*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt18ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt19ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt19ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt20ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt21ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt22ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt18ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt19ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt20ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt21ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt22ccm


59/178

Before proceedin$ to resolve these issues, it #a" serve the ends of clarit" to first revie! thebasic fra#e!or3 b" !hich the courts anal">e challen$es to the constitutionalit" of statutesas !ell as the standards b" !hich co#pliance !ith the e%ual protection clause #a" bedeter#ined.

Pre*3m)&(o! o Co!*&(&3&(o!#'(&

It is a basic a7io# of constitutional la! that all presu#ptions are indul$ed in favor ofconstitutionalit" and a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of theconstitutionalit" of le$islation should be adopted.


60/178

upon onl" to #easure the basic validit" of the le$islative classification./e! *omeo&/er (!e)e!e!& r($/& (* !o& #& *%e #! "/e! &/ere (* !o re#*o! &o (!er#!&()#&/, (& (* )re*3me &/#& e


61/178


62/178

7 7 7

'e have little trouble in concludin$ that -62 is rationall" related to the le$iti#ate$overn#ental ob:ective of avoidin$ undue favoritis# to one side or the other inprivate labor disputes.


63/178

Co!$re**; #c&(o!, o3r (!3(r (* #& #! e!.Cnited States 9ailroad 9etirementBd v "ritz, supra, 2 G.S., at -)2, -6- S.Ct. at /-. T/(* *!#r o re


64/178


65/178

In Philippine ;udges Association v Prado,6this Court ruled that Section 0 of R.A. No.)0,-!ithdra!in$ the fran3in$ privile$es of the 1udiciar"5but retainin$ the sa#e for thePresident, the Fice9President, Senators and Me#bers of the ouse of Representatives, andothers,0violated the e%ual protection clause. In anal">in$ the %uestioned le$islativeclassification, the Court concluded that the onl" reasonable criteria for classification vis99visthe $rant of the fran3in$ privile$e !as the perceived needof the $rantee for the

acco##odation, !hich !ould :ustif" a !aiver of substantial revenue b" the Corporation inthe interest of providin$ for a s#oother flo! of co##unication bet!een the $overn#entand the people.


66/178

onin$ ordinancere%uirin$ a special per#it for the operation of a $roup ho#e for the #entall" retarded !aschallen$ed on e%ual protection $rounds.


67/178

per#it !as re%uired.


68/178

discri#inated !ith $ross in:ustice and hardship a$ainst the# as a class, !as the evilto be re#edied, and b" it =the ourteenth A#end#ent? such la!s !ere forbidden. If,ho!ever, the States did not confor# their la!s to its re%uire#ents, then, b" the fifthsection of the article of a#end#ent, Con$ress !as authori>ed to enforce it b"suitable le$islation. And it !as added, 'e doubt ver" #uch !hether an" action of aState, not directed b" !a" of discri#ination a$ainst the ne$roes, as a class, !ill ever

be held to co#e !ithin the purvie! of this provision.

7 7 7 It ordains that no State shall deprive an" person of life, libert", or propert",!ithout due process of la!, or den" to an" person !ithin its :urisdiction the e%ualprotection of the la!s. 'hat is this but declarin$ that the la! in the States shall bethe sa#e for the blac3 as for the !hite that all persons, !hether colored or !hite,shall stand e%ual before the la!s of the States, and, in re$ard to the colored race, for!hose protection the a#end#ent !as pri#aril" desi$ned, that no discri#inationshall be #ade a$ainst the# b" la! because of their color&


69/178

N T/ere m# be !#rro"er *co)e or o)er#&(o! o &/e )re*3m)&(o! oco!*&(&3&(o!#'(& "/e! 'e$(*'#&(o! #))e#r* o! (&* #ce &o be "(&/(! #*)ec((c )ro/(b(&(o! o &/e Co!*&(&3&(o!, *3c/ #* &/o*e o &/e (r*& &e!Ame!me!&*, "/(c/ #re eeme e3#'' *)ec((c "/e! /e' &o beembr#ce "(&/(! &/e ?o3r&ee!&/.See Stro#ber$ v. California, 540 G.S.02, 0/2, 0)6, - S.Ct. 05, 0, 0/, ) @.Ed. ---), )0 [email protected]. -4 @ovell

v. +riffin, 060 G.S. , 4 S.Ct. ///, 45 @.Ed. 22, decided March 54, -204.

It is unnecessar" to consider no! !hether le$islation !hich restricts thosepolitical processes !hich can ordinaril" be e7pected to brin$ about repeal ofundesirable le$islation, is to be sub:ected to #ore e7actin$ :udicial scrutin"under the $eneral prohibitions of the ourteenth A#end#ent than are #ostother t"pes of le$islation. n restrictions upon the ri$ht to vote, see Ni7on v.erndon, 5)0 G.S. 0/, ) S.Ct. /, )- @.Ed. )2 Ni7on v. Condon, 54/G.S. )0, 5 S.Ct. 4, )/ @.Ed. 24, 44 [email protected]. 4 on restraints upon thedisse#ination of infor#ation, see Near v. Minnesota, 540 G.S. /2), )-0 99)-, )-499)56, )55, - S.Ct. /5, /06, /05, /00, ) @.Ed. -0) +ros:ean v.A#erican Press Co., 52) G.S. 500, / S.Ct. , 46 @.Ed. //6 @ovell v.+riffin, supra on interferences !ith political or$ani>ations, see Stro#ber$ v.California, supra. 540 G.S. 02, 0/2, - S.Ct. 05, 0, ) @.Ed. ---), )[email protected]. -4 is3e v. ansas. 5) G.S. 046, ) S.Ct. /, )- @.Ed. --64'hitne" v. California, 5) G.S. 0), 0)099 0)4, ) S.Ct. /-, /). /2, )[email protected]. -62 erndon v. @o!r". 06- G.S. 55, ) S.Ct. )05, 4- @.Ed.-6// and see ol#es, 1., in +itlo! v. Ne! Jor3, 5/4 G.S. /5, /)0, S.Ct./5, /2 @.Ed. --04 as to prohibition of peaceable asse#bl", see De 1on$e v.re$on, 522 G.S. 00, 0/, ) S.Ct. 5, 5/6, 4- @.Ed. 5)4.

Nor need !e en%uire !hether si#ilar considerations enter into the revie! ofstatutes directed at particular reli$ious, Pierce v. Societ" of Sisters. 5/4 G.S.-6, S.Ct. )-, /2 @.Ed. -6)6, 02. [email protected]. /4, or national, Me"er v.Nebras3a, 5/5 G.S. 026, 0 S.Ct. /5, /) @.Ed. -65, 52 [email protected]. -/ Bartels

v. Io!a, 5/5 G.S. 6, 0 S.Ct. /54, /) @.Ed. -6) arrin$ton v.


70/178

#'' *3c/ re*&r(c&(o!* #re 3!co!*&(&3&(o!#'. -& (* &o *# &/#& co3r&* m3*&*3b=ec& &/em &o &/e mo*& r($( *cr3&(!.Pressin$ public necessit" #a"so#eti#es :ustif" the e7istence of such restrictions racial anta$onis# nevercan.)(E#phasis and underscorin$ supplied*

Racial classifications are $enerall" thou$ht to be suspect because throu$hout the Gnited

States; histor" these have $enerall" been used to discri#inate officiall" a$ainst $roups!hich are politicall" subordinate and sub:ect to private pre:udice and discri#ination.)


71/178

... in$ thea$$ressive ne! e%ual protection for bein$ strict in theor" and fatal in fact-65and thedeferential old e%ual protection as #ini#al scrutin" in theor" and virtuall" none in fact.-60

+unther;s senti#ents !ere also shared b" certain #e#bers of the Bur$er Court, #ostnotabl" 1ustice Marshall !ho advocated a Slidin$ Scale Approach !hich he elaborated on inhis dissentin$ opinion in San Antonio -ndependent School &istrict v 9odriguez8-6


72/178

approach in !hich ;concentration (is* placed upon the character of the classificationin %uestion, the relative i#portance to individuals in the class discri#inated a$ainstof the $overn#ental benefits that the" do not receive, and the asserted stateinterests in support of the classification.; Dandrid$e v. 'illia#s, supra, 02) G.S., at56995-, 26 S.Ct., at --46 (dissentin$ opinion*.-6

Shortl" before his retire#ent in -22-, 1ustice Marshall su$$ested to the Supre#e Court thatit adopt a Slidin$ Scale that !ould e#brace a spectru# of standards of revie!.-6/

ther sources of discontent in the G.S. Supre#e Court are 1ustice Stevens !ho ar$ues for areturn to the Rational Basis ed--as follo!s8

E%ual Protection Standards

R#&(o!#' S&r(c& Scr3&(! -!&erme(#&e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt105ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt106ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt107ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt108ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt109ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt110ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt111ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt112ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt113ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt114ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt105ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt106ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt107ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt108ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt109ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt110ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt111ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt112ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt113ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt114ccm


73/178

B#*(* Scr3&(!

Applicable


74/178

As the precedin$ revie! of the standards developed b" the G.S. ederal Supre#e Courtsho!s, the choice of the appropriate test for evaluatin$ a le$islative classification isdependent on the nature of the ri$hts affected (ie!hether funda#ental or not* and thecharacter of the persons alle$edl" discri#inated a$ainst (ie. !hether belon$in$ to asuspect class or not*. As deter#ined b" these t!o para#eters, the scope of application ofeach standard is distinct and e7clusive of the others. Indeed, to #" 3no!led$e, the

A#erican Court has never applied #ore than one standard to a $iven set of facts, and!here one standard !as found to be appropriate, the G.S. Supre#e Court has deliberatel"esche!ed an" discussion of another.--

Assu#in$ that the e%ual protection standards evolved b" the G.S. Supre#e Court #a" beadopted in this :urisdiction, there is no reason !h" the e7clusive #anner of their applicationshould not be adopted also.

In the present case, the persons alle$edl" discri#inated a$ainst (ie. the ran3 and filee#plo"ees of the BSP* and the ri$hts the" are assertin$ (to be e7e#pted fro# theCo#pensation Classification S"ste# prescribed b" the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!* re#ainthe sa#e, !hether the classification under revie! is bet!een the# and the e7ecutive

officers of the BSP or the ran3 and file e#plo"ees of the @BP, DBP, SSS and +SIS.

It therefore stands to reason that the test or standard !hether Rational Basis, StrictScrutin" or Inter#ediate Scrutin" 9 a$ainst !hich petitioner;s clai#s should be #easuredshould li3e!ise be the sa#e, re$ardless of !hether the evaluation pertains to theconstitutionalit" of (-* the classification e7pressl" #ade in Section - (c* of


75/178


76/178

In the !ords of 1ustice 1ac3son of the G.S. Supre#e Court in


77/178

a reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions, !here theclassification is $er#ane to the purpose of the la! and applies e%uall" to all thosebelon$in$ to the sa#e class.


78/178

o"eed as en:o"in$ a !ide ran$eof discretion. -& (* !o& !ece**#r &/#& &/e c'#**((c#&(o! be b#*e o! *c(e!&((cor m#r%e (ere!ce* o &/(!$* or (! &/e(r re'#&(o!. Ne(&/er (* (& !ece**#r&/#& &/e c'#**((c#&(o! be m#e "(&/ m#&/em#&(c#' !(ce&. >e!ce 'e$(*'#&(in$ de$reesof evil or har#, and le$islation is addressed to evils as the" #a"appear.-06(E#phasis supplied citations o#itted*


79/178

held to be valid at one ti#e upon a particular state of facts #a" be subse%uentl"invalidated if the factual basis for the substantial distinctions that e7isted bet!een the t!oclasses has ceased to e7ist. essante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex.-04

1ust such a possibilit" !as ac3no!led$ed b" the G.S. Supre#e Court in hastletonorporation v Sinclair,-02!here the Court, spea3in$ throu$h 1ustice ol#es, declared8

ernon-5concerned a parcel of landad:acent to a railroad station and located in the #iddle of a hi$hl" developed businessdistrict had continuall" been used as a car par3. In -25) it !as placed in a Residence ;B;district under a >onin$ ordinance under !hich its use as a car par3 re#ained a validnonconfor#in$ use. In -2-, the area !as sold to Fernon Par3 Realt" !hich applied for, butdid not obtain, a per#it to build a retail shoppin$ center (prohibited under the -25)ordinance*. In -25, after Fernon Par3 had brou$ht suit to declare the -25) ordinanceunconstitutional, the cit";s co##on council a#ended the >onin$ ordinance to prohibit theuse of the propert" for an" purpose e7cept the par3in$ and stora$e of auto#obiles and thecontinuance of prior nonconfor#in$ uses. onin$ ordinance and the -25 a#end#ent ille$al and void, rulin$ that8

'hile the co##on council has the un%uestioned ri$ht to enact >onin$ la!srespectin$ the use of propert" in accordance !ith a !ell9considered andco#prehensive plan desi$ned to pro#ote public health, safet" and $eneral !elfare,

such po!er is sub:ect to the constitutional li#itation that it #a" not be e7ertedarbitraril" or unreasonabl" and this is so !henever the >onin$ ordinance precludesthe use of the propert" for an" purpose for !hich it is reasonabl" adapted. B &/e*#me &o%e!, #! or(!#!ce


80/178

In 6ashville, hatanooga St =ouise 9ail!ays v


81/178

fees for ani#als 3illed on unfenced railroad ri$ht of !a", !ithout proof of ne$li$ence. 8 U!er &/e *&3&e* &/e )'#(!&( &o "/om &/ec#rr(er, #* *3c/, "#* 3!er !o ob'($#&(o!*, "#* #''o"e &o reco


82/178

of the le$islation, ho!ever, $oes bac3 to the be$innin$ of railroad transportation inthe state. T/e co!*&(&3&(o!#'(& o *3c/ 'e$(*'#&(o! "#* *3*(!e bec#3*e ())'(e &o #'' *(m('#r cor)or#&(o!* #! /# or (&* ob=ec& &/e *#e& o)er*o!* o! # &r#(! #! &/e )ro&ec&(o! o )ro)er&. Lo3(*


83/178

inall", in 9utter v Este0an,--this Court invalidated Section 5 of R.A. No. 05 providin$ foran ei$ht9"ear #oratoriu# period !ithin !hich a creditor could not de#and pa"#ent of a#onetar" obli$ation contracted before Dece#ber 4, -2- (counted fro# the settle#ent ofthe !ar da#a$e clai# of the debtor* after ta3in$ :udicial notice of the si$nificant chan$e inthe nation;s econo#ic circu#stances in -20, thus it held8

777 'e do not need to $o far to appreciate this situation. 'e can see it and feel it as!e $a>e around to observe the !ave of reconstruction and rehabilitation that hass!ept the countr" since liberation than3s to the aid of A#erica and the innatepro$ressive spirit of our people.


84/178

subse%uentl" ruled to have violated the e%ual protection $uarant" in -2) due to chan$edfactual conditions, the onl" testapplied in both instances !as the Rational Basis ation @a! !as bolstered b"the a#end#ents to the charters of the @BP, DBP, SSS and +SIS, !hich e7e#pted all the

e#plo"ees of these +CCsO+Is fro# said Co#pensation Classification S"ste#. o!ever,these subse%uent a#end#ents do not constitute factual chan$es in the conte7t of relativeconstitutionalit". Rather, the" involve subse%uent le$islative classifications !hich should beevaluated in accordance !ith the appropriate standard.


85/178


86/178

presu#ption of validit". eller v &oe, 62 G.S. 0-5, 0-2, --0 S.Ct. 5/0), 5/5,-5 @.Ed.5d 5) (-220*.-/5(E#phasis and underscorin$ supplied*

Neither does the #ain opinion identif" !hat funda#ental ri$ht the challen$ed proviso of theNe! Central Ban3 Act infrin$es upon. Instead theponenciacites the follo!in$ Constitutionalprovisions8

PREAMB@E8

'e, the soverei$n ilipino people, i#plorin$ the aid of Al#i$ht" +od, in order to build a :ustand hu#ane societ" and establish a +overn#ent that shall e#bod" our ideals andaspirations, pro#ote the co##on $ood, conserve and develop our patri#on", and secure toourselves and our posterit" the blessin$s of independence and de#ocrac" under the rule ofla! and a re$i#e of truth, :ustice, freedo#, love, e%ualit", and peace, do ordain andpro#ul$ate this Constitution.

AR


87/178


88/178

policies.-/0As previousl" discussed, #ere reliance on the E%ual Protection Clause !hich is inthe Bill of Ri$hts is not sufficient to :ustif" the application of Strict Scrutin". 'hile Section 0of Article HIII enu#erates the seven basic ri$hts of !or3ers 9 the ri$ht to or$ani>e, the ri$htto conduct collective bar$ainin$ or ne$otiation !ith #ana$e#ent, the ri$ht to en$a$e inpeaceful concerted activities includin$ the ri$ht to stri3e in accordance !ith la!, the ri$ht toen:o" securit" of tenure, the ri$ht to !or3 under hu#ane conditions, the ri$ht to receive a

livin$ !a$e, and the ri$ht to participate in polic" and decision9processes affectin$ theirri$hts and benefits as #a" be provided b" la! 9 I fail to see ho! Article II, Section - (c* ofthe Ne! Central Ban3 Act can i#pin$e on an" of these seven ri$hts.

Another reason !h" Strict Scrutin" is inappropriate is the absence of a classification !hich isbased on an inherentl" suspect characteristic.


89/178


90/178

cursor" e7a#ination, ho!ever, de#onstrates that neither of the t!o distin$uishin$characteristics of !ealth classifications can be found here. ?(r*&, (! *3))or& o &/e(rc/#r$e &/#& &/e **&em (*cr(m(!#&e* #$#(!*& &/e ;)oor,; #))e''ee* /#


91/178

/#


92/178

#ain opinion to A#erican :urisprudence it contradicted itself !hen it stated that A#erican:urisprudence and authorities, #uch less the A#erican Constitution, are of dubiousapplication for these are no lon$er controllin$ !ithin our :urisdiction and have onl" li#itedpersuasive #erit.-)5

-!&r(!*(c Co!*&(&3&(o!#'(& o Sec&(o! 15c+

o &/e Ne" Ce!&r#' B#!% Ac&

Is the classification bet!een the officers and ran3 and file e#plo"ees in Section - (c* of theNe! Central Ban3 Act in violation of the e%ual protection clause&

Petitioner, contendin$ that there are no substantial distinctions bet!een these t!o $roups ofBSP e#plo"ees, ar$ues that it is.

n the other hand, the #ain opinion, appl"in$ the Rational Basis


93/178

closel" as possible !ith the principles provided for under Republic Act No./)4. Provided, however,T/#& com)e!*#&(o! #! "#$e *&r3c&3re oem)'oee* "/o*e )o*(&(o!* #'' 3!er *#'#r $r#e 16 #! be'o" */#'' be (!#ccor#!ce "(&/ &/e r#&e* )re*cr(be 3!er Re)3b'(c Ac& No. 9:58.(E#phasissupplied*

It is readil" apparent that Section - (c*, b" i#plicitl" e7e#ptin$ the e7ecutive corps of theBSP (those !ith S+ 56 and above* fro# the Co#pensation Classification S"ste# under theSalar" Standardi>ation @a!, #a3es a classification bet!een the officers and the ran3 and fileof the BSP and, !ho, li3e all other $overn#ent e#plo"ees, are s%uarel" !ithin the a#bit ofthe Co#pensation Classification S"ste# b" the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!.

ed to adopt !ere to be inaccordance !ith the provisions of applicable la!s, includin$ the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!8

MR. 1AFIER (E.*. No, Mr. Spea3er, !e have that phrase in Section - (c*. e, the po!er to classif" positions, the po!er to adopt co#pensation plansare sub:ect to the provisions of applicable la!s.


94/178

MR. ARRJ. M# - %!o" Mr. S)e#%er, "/#& (* &/e #))'(c#b'e '#" &/#& "(''c3r(' &/(*

MR. 1AFIER (E.*. T/e S#'#r S!#r(#&(o! L#".

MR. ARRJ. So, &/e Ge!&'em#! (* !o" *3$$e*&(!$ &/#& &/e S!#r(#&(o!

L#" "('' #))' &o &/(*

MR. 1AFIER (E.*. e*, Mr. S)e#%er.-)0(E#phasis supplied*

In fact, the deliberations sho! that, in 3eepin$ !ith the reco$nition in Section 2-)of theSalar" Standardi>ation @a! that co#pensation hi$her than S+ 06 #i$ht be necessar" incertain e7ceptional cases to attract and retain co#petent top9level personnel, the initialintention of the drafters of the ouse Bill !as to e7e#pt onl" the +overnor and theMonetar" Board fro# the covera$e of the Co#pensation Classification S"ste#8

MR. @ACSN. Mr. S)e#%er, Sec&(o! 12 me!&(o!* o!' &/e rem3!er#&(o! o &/e$o


95/178

re#'' "#!& &o m#%e *3re &/#& &/e ation.-)4(E#phasis and underscorin$ supplied*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt177ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt178ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt177ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt178ccm


96/178

T/e C'#**((c#&(o! (* B#*e o! Re#' D(ere!ce* be&"ee!&/e O(cer* #! &/e R#!% #! ?('e o &/e BSP, #! (*Germ#!e &o &/e P3r)o*e o &/e L#"

As pointed out b" the ffice of the Solicitor +eneral,-)2the fore$oin$ classification of BSPpersonnel into #ana$erial and ran39and9file is based on real differences as to the scope of

!or3 and de$ree of responsibilit" bet!een these t!o classes of e#plo"ees. At the sa#eti#e, the e7e#ption of the BSP #ana$erial personnel fro# the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!bears a rational relationship to the purpose of the Ne! Central Ban3 Act.-46In the !ords ofthe Solicitor +eneral8

7 7 7 Ar&(c'e --, Sec&(o! 15 c+ o RA :95 "#* )3r)o*e' #o)&e &o #&&r#c&/($/' com)e&e!& )er*o!!e', &o e!*3re )roe**(o!#'(*m #! ece''e!ce #&&/e BSP #* "e'' #* &o e!*3re (&* (!e)e!e!ce &/ro3$/ (*c#' #!#m(!(*&r#&(


97/178

such as plannin$, or$ani>in$, directin$, coordinatin$, controllin$ and overseein$!ithin dele$ated authorit" the activities of an or$ani>ation, a unit thereof or of a$roup, re%uirin$ so#e de$ree of professional, technical or scientific 3no!led$e ande7perience, application of #ana$erial or supervisor" s3ills re%uired to carr" out theirbasic duties and responsibilities involvin$ functional $uidance and control, leadership,as !ell as line supervision. ed field usuall" ac%uired fro# co#pletion of a bachelor;s de$ree orhi$her de$ree courses.

T/e )o*(&(o!* (! &/(* c#&e$or #re #**($!e S#'#r Gr#e 6 &o S#'#r Gr#e.

(b* Proe**(o!#' No!7S3)er


98/178

It should be borne in #ind that the concept of $rade fro# the ld Salar" Standardi>ation@a! is #aintained in the present one.


99/178

Representatives and Chief 1ustice of the Supre#e Court. No other positions in the$overn#ent service are considered to be of e%uivalent ran3.

GRADE 1 ationall"e%uivalent to a Depart#ent, and its head to that of a Depart#ent Secretar".

GRADE 0 Positions included are those of Depart#ent Gndersecretar", Cabinet

Gndersecretar", Presidential Assistant, Solicitor +eneral, +overn#ent CorporateCounsel, Court Ad#inistrator of the Supre#e Court, Chief of Staff of the ffice of theFice9President, National Econo#ic and Develop#ent Authorit" Deput" Director+eneral, Presidential Mana$e#ent Staff E7ecutive Director, Deput" #buds#an,Associate 1ustices of the Court of Appeals, Associate 1ustices of the Sandi$anba"an,Special Prosecutor, Gniversit" of the Philippines E7ecutive Fice9President, MindanaoState Gniversit" President, Pol"technic Gniversit" of the Philippines President of andPresident of other state universities and colle$es of the sa#e class.

eads of councils, co##issions, boards and si#ilar entities !hose operations cutacross offices or depart#ents or are servin$ a si>eable portion of the $eneral publicand !hose covera$e is nation!ide or !hose functions are co#parable to theaforecited positions in the precedin$ para$raph, #a" be placed at this level.

ed herein shall be used in the co#putation of the retire#entbenefits for those !ho retire under the e7istin$ retire#ent la!s !ithin the aforesaidperiod.

SEC


100/178

controlled corporations or financial institutions, the Depart#ent of Bud$et andMana$e#ent is hereb" directed to prepare the Inde7 of ccupational Services to be$uided b" the Bench#ar3 Position Schedule prescribed hereunder and the follo!in$factors8 (-* the education and e7perience re%uired to perfor# the duties andresponsibilities of the positions (5* the nature and co#ple7it" of the !or3 to beperfor#ed (0* the 3ind of supervision received (* #ental andOor ph"sical strain

re%uired in the co#pletion of the !or3 (* nature and e7tent of internal ande7ternal relationships (/* 3ind of supervision e7ercised ()* decision9#a3in$responsibilit" (4* responsibilit" for accurac" of records and reports (2*accountabilit" for funds, properties and e%uip#ent and (-6* hardship, ha>ard andpersonal ris3 involved in the :ob.

Bench#ar3 Position Schedule

Position


101/178

Social 'elfare fficer I --

En$ineer I -5

Feterinarian I -0

@e$al fficer I -

Ad#inistrative fficer II -

Dentist II -/

Post#aster IF -)

orester III -4

Associate Professor I -2

Rural ealth Ph"sician 56

In no case shall the salar" of the chair#an, president, $eneral #ana$er orad#inistrator, and the board of directors of $overn#ent9o!ned or controlledcorporations and financial institutions e7ceed Salar" +rade 068 Provided,


102/178

In the case at bar, &/e c/#''e!$eprovisoo)er#&e* o! &/e b#*(* o *#'#r$r#e or o(cer7em)'oee *&3*. -& (* # (*&(!c&(o! b#*e o! eco!om(c c'#**#! *&3*,!ith the hi$her $rades as recipients of a benefit specificall" !ithheldfro# the lo!er $rades. (E#phasis and underscorin$ supplied*

Si$nificantl", petitioner never advanced this ar$u#ent an"!here in its pleadin$s. Moreover,

there is absolutel" nothin$ in the pleadin$s or records of this petition to su$$est that8 (-*petitioner;s #e#bers belon$ to a separate econo#ic class than those !ith S+ 56 andabove and (5* that the distinction bet!een the officers and the ran3 and file in Section-(c* is based on such econo#ic status.

'hat is #ore, the fore$oin$ state#ent flies in the face of a basis of classification !ell9established in our la! and :urisprudence.

Indeed, the distinction bet!een officers and e#plo"ees in the $overn#ent service !asclearl" established as earl" as -2-) !ith the enact#ent of the ld Revised Ad#inistrativeCode and later incorporated into the lan$ua$e of the Constitution8

In ter#s of personnel, the s"ste# includes both officers and e#plo"ees.


103/178


104/178


105/178

le$islature, !hile ac3no!led$in$ the need to au$#ent the salaries and e#olu#ents of#e#bers of the :udiciar" in order to attract and retain co#petent personnel and insulatethe# fro# possible outside influence, nevertheless had to ta3e into consideration the li#itedresources of the $overn#ent as !ell as the pri#ar" ai# of the la!, and conse%uentl"prioriti>ed those holdin$ :udicial offices or !ith :udicial ran3 over other court personnel.

T/e S3b*e3e!& Ame!me!& o &/e C/#r&er* o &/eo&/er GOCC* #! G?-* D( No& A'&er &/eCo!*&(&3&(o!#'(& o Sec&(o! 15 c+

B" operation of the e%ual protection clause, are the ran3 and file e#plo"ees of the BSPentitled to e7e#ption fro# the Co#pensation Classification S"ste# provided for under theSalar" Standardi>ation @a! as a conse%uence of the e7e#ption of the ran3 and filee#plo"ees of certain other +CCs and +Is&

Petitioner ar$ues in the affir#ative #aintainin$ that8


106/178


107/178

S!#r(#&(o! L#"and Republic Act No. )06, other!ise 3no!n as the Attrition@a!

7 7 7 (E#phasis supplied*

(* R.A. No. 450, !hich a#ended the Charter of the DBP on Ma" 0-, -22) and e7e#pted

the ban3 fro# the covera$e of the e7istin$ Salar" Standardi>ation @a!8

SEC


108/178

Batas Pa#bansa Bilan$ 00), other!ise 3no!n as the @ocal +overn#ent Code, !aspassed b" the le$islature and beca#e effective on ebruar" -6, -240. Section )/thereof (under ens bet!een the a$es of -2 and5 or forei$n corporations doin$ business !ithin the state.


109/178


110/178

S(!ce (& (* (m)o**(b'e &o =3$e &/e re#*o!#b'e!e** o # c'#**((c#&(o! "(&/o3&re'#&(!$ (& &o &/e )3r)o*e o &/e '#", &/e (r*& )/#*e o &/e =3(c(#' *% (* &/e(e!&((c#&(o! o &/e '#";* )3r)o*e.7 7 7

7 7 7

It is thus evident that the atte#pt to identif" the purpose of a la! 9 an atte#pt #ade#andator" b" the e%ual protection re%uire#ent 9 involves the Court in the thornieraspects of :udicial revie!. At best, the Court #ust uncriticall" and oftenunrealisticall" accept a le$islative avo!al at its face value. 't !orst, it #ustchallen$e le$islative inte$rit" and push be"ond the e7press state#ent intounconfined real#s of inference. avin$ accepted or discovered the elusive purposethe Court #ust then, under the discri#inator" le$islation doctrine, #a3e a :ud$#entas to the purit" of le$islative #otive and, under substantive e%ual protection,deter#ine the le$iti#ac" of the end. nl" after the purpose of the la! has thus beendiscovered and sub:ected to this scrutin" can the Court proceed !ith theclassification proble#.

7 7 7 E7cept !hen the class in the la! is itself defined b" the #ischief =to beeli#inated?, &/e #**er&(o! &/#& #! )#r&(c3'#r re'#&(o! /o'* be&"ee! &/ec'#**((!$ &r#(& #! &/e )3r)o*e (* #! em)(r(c#' *&eme!&.


111/178

BSP to$ether !ith the ran39and9file e#plo"ees of the @BP, SSS, +SIS and DBP belon$ to asin$le class and (5* there are no reasonable distinctions bet!een the ran39and9filee#plo"ees of the BSP and the e7e#pted e#plo"ees of the other +CCsO+Is.

o!ever, these assu#ptions are unfounded, and the assertion that +Is have lon$ beenreco$ni>ed as one distinct class, separate fro# other $overn#ental entities is de#onstrabl"

false.

As previousl" discussed, Section 5 of P.D. 24566cited in support of the fore$oin$ propositionhas been e7pressl" repealed b" Section -/ of Salar" Standardi>ation @a!.

Sec. -/. Repeal of Special Salar" @a!s and Re$ulations. A'' '#"*, ecree*,eec3&(ation @a!#anifests the intent to provide favored treat#ent for +CCs and +Is. ation @a! e7pressl" provides the $eneral rule that+Is, li3e other +CCs and all other #e#bers of the civil service, are !ithin the covera$e ofthe la!8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt200ccmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_148208_2004.html#fnt200ccm


112/178


113/178

)o*(&(o!*. E C>A-RMAN Se!. R#*3'+.Broad enou$h&

SEC. CARAGUE.Jes.

T>E C>A-RMAN Re). A!##+.It covers ever"bod". Ever"bod" is covered that!a".

REP. LAGUDA.Mr. Chair#an, if !e $o bac3 to the a#end#ent of Senator Rasul, Ithin3 !hat she has put there is that it is the President;s discretion, because in theouse version, it is an across9the9board9thin$.


114/178

So#eti#es there are certain %e )eo)'e, li3e #one" #ar3et specialists that aredifficult to 3eep because the" easil" transfer to another co#pan".

7 7 7

SEC. CARAGUE.In the end, Jour onor, it #a" be #ore e7pensive to li#it the

salaries of these 3ind of people because if "ou don;t $et $ood people, the viabilit" ofthe corporation, the profitabilit" $oes do!n. So "ou actuall", in the end, lose #ore.Jou don;t see it because it is :ust loss of revenue, in lac3 of profitabilit", but actuall"it costs "ou #ore. And that is the proble# of this 3ind of...56(E#phasis andunderscorin$ supplied*

'hat is #ore, the e7e#ption of the personnel of the Securities and E7chan$e Co##ission(SEC* fro# the covera$e of the Co#pensation Classification S"ste#, as pointed out in the#ain opinion,56onl" underscores the error in #aintainin$ e#plo"#ent in a +I as thedefinin$ trait of e#plo"ees e7e#pted fro# said S"ste#.

In actual fact, the e#plo"ees of a nu#ber of +Is re#ain !ithin the covera$e of the

Co#pensation Classification S"ste#,56/

!hile e#plo"ees of severalother +CCs56)and $overn#ent a$encies564have been e7e#pted fro# the sa#e. ence,+I e#plo"#ent, as advocated b" the #ain opinion, cannot be reasonabl" considered to bethe basis for e7e#ption for the Co#pensation Classification S"ste# of the Salar"Standardi>ation @a!.

Curiousl", ho! could the e7e#ption of the SEC personnel add insult to petitioner;s in:ur"!hen, $oin$ b" !hat the #ain opinion holds to be the definin$ characteristic of the class to!hich petitioner;s #e#bers belon$ 9 that is, e#plo"#ent in a +I, the t!o $roups ofe#plo"ees !ould obviousl" not be co#parable&

Mere Em)'ome!& (! # GOCC or G?- (* !o&

De&erm(!#&(


115/178

purpose of i#ple#entin$ a$rarian refor#, but also to #a3e it #ore co#petitive !ith forei$nban3s.562

ne of the salient points of R.A. No. )26) is the e7e#ption of all of the @and Ban3;spersonnel fro# the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!, authori>in$ at the sa#e ti#e its board ofdirectors to provide co#pensation, position classification s"ste# and %ualification standards.


116/178

MR. APOSTOL.Is it not that the co#pensation of officials and e#plo"ees of the@and Ban3 #ust be si#ilar or co#parable to the salaries and co#pensation of$overn#ent ban3s or financial institutions&

MR. ?UENTEBELLA.Jes. In fact, the Philippine National Ban3 has a better financialco#pensation pac3a$e co#pared to the @and Ban3.

MR. APOSTOL.Jes, it should and it #ust because PNB is alread" privati>ed, @andBan3 is not "et.

MR. ?UENTEBELLA.Not "et, "our onor.

MR. APOSTOL.If the co#pensation pac3a$e of the e#plo"ees of @and Ban3 shouldbe si#ilar to PNB, then !h" not privati>e so that @and Ban3 !ill be e7e#pted fro#this...

MR. ?UENTEBELLA.'ell, as I said, "our onor, in due ti#e, !e can $o into thataspect of privati>ation. 'e are not closin$ our e"es to that possibilit". But for the

#o#ent that the ban3 is still tas3ed !ith nu#erous proble#s, particularl" ona$rarian refor#, and for as lon$ as the ban3 has not been able to perfor# its #a:ortas3 in helpin$ the $overn#ent provide the necessar" #echanis#s to solve andaddress the proble#s of a$rarian refor#, then !e cannot tal3 about privati>ation "et.Because the function of the ban3 is not purel" for profit orientation, "our onor.'hatever profits are $enerated under the co##ercial ban3in$ transactions arechanneled to the a$rarian sector, !hich is a losin$ proposition actuall".5--(E#phasissupplied*

@i3e the @and Ban3, the Develop#ent Ban3 of the Philippines (DBP*, the countr";s pre#ierdevelop#ent ban3, !as also e7e#pt fro# the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!. Republic Act No.450 (RA 450* a#ended E7ecutive rder No. 4- other!ise 3no!n as the -24/ Revised

Charter of the Develop#ent Ban3 of the Philippines to enable DBP to effectivel" contributeto the nation;s attain#ent of its socio9econo#ic ob:ectives and fill the $aps left b" theprivate sector !hich #i$ht be un!illin$ or unprepared to ta3e on critical pro:ects andpro$ra#s.


117/178

institutions and associations !hich can provide resources and other t"pes ofassistance to pro:ects !ith clearl"9defined develop#ent i#pact.5-5

In order to achieve DBP;s vision as the countr";s pre#ier develop#ent ban3 in a rapidl"$ro!in$ econo#ic environ#ent, the le$islature sou$ht to (-* increase the authori>ed capitalof DBP fro# P billion to P-6 billion and (5* restructure DBP;s or$ani>ation into one !hich

is #ar3et9responsive, product focused, hori>ontall" ali$ned, and !ith a lean, hi$hl"#otivated !or3 force b" re#ovin$ the DBP fro# the covera$e of the Salar" Standardi>ation@a!. ation. A$#(!, "e #re (! # *(&3#&(o! "/ere "e #re com)e&(!$ or)er*o!!e' "(&/ &/e )r(


118/178


119/178


120/178

+iven the factual basis for the classification bet!een e7e#pt and non9e7e#pt e#plo"ees(iereal distinctions as to the proprietar" or $overn#ental character of the +CCO+I,co#petition !ith the private sector, and difficult" in attractin$ and #aintainin$ co#petentpersonnel* and the reasonable relationship of this classification to the attain#ent of theob:ectives of the la!s involved, the %uestionedprovisocannot be considered oppressive ordiscri#inator" in its i#ple#entation.

Si$nificantl", neither the petitioner nor the #ain opinion de#onstrates !hat in:uriespetitioner;s #e#bers have sustained as a result of theprovisoin Section - (c* of


121/178


122/178

ence, for this Court to intervene no!, !hen no intervention is called for, !ould be topre#aturel" curtail the public debate on the issue of co#pensation of the e#plo"ees of the+CCs and +Is, and effectivel" substitute this Court;s polic" :ud$#ents for those of thele$islature, !ith !ho# the po!er of the purse is constitutionall" lod$ed. Such !ould notonl" constitute an i#proper e7ercise of the Court;s po!er of :udicial revie!, but #a" alsoeffectivel" stunt the $ro!th and #aturit" of the nation as a political bod" as !ell.

In this re$ard, it #a" be !orth!hile to reflect upon the !ords of Mr. Chief 1ustice Ber$er ofthe A#erican Court in his dissentin$ opinion in Plyler v &oe,50to !it8

T/e Co3r& m#%e* !o #&&em)& &o (*$3(*e &/#& (& (* #c&(!$ &o m#%e 3) orCo!$re**; '#c% o eec&(


123/178

the $overn#ent to de#onstrate that its classification has been narro!l" tailored to furtherco#pellin$ $overn#ental interests&

Not!ithstandin$ the lac3 of support fro# both local and forei$n :urisprudence to :ustif" the$rant of the instant petition, the #ain opinion #aintains that the polic" of social :ustice andthe special protection afforded to labor50)re%uire the use of e%ual protection as a tool of

effective intervention, and the adoption of a less deferential attitude b" this Court tole$islative classification.504

ation @a! clearl"incorporate the spirit and intent of the social :ustice provisions cited in the #ain opinion, to!it8

SEC


124/178

(d* A revie! of $overn#ent co#pensation rates, ta3in$ into account possible erosionin purchasin$ po!er due to inflation and other factors, shall be conductedperiodicall".

o! then are the ai#s of social :ustice served b" re#ovin$ the BSP ran3 and file personnelfro# the a#bit of the Salar" Standardi>ation @a!& In the alternative, !hat other public

purpose !ould be served b" orderin$ such an e7e#ption& Surel" to $rant the ran3 and fileof the BSP e7e#ption solel" for the reason that other +CC or +I e#plo"ees have beene7e#pted, !ithout re$ard for the reasons !hich i#pelled the le$islature to provide for thosee7e#ptions, !ould be to cr"stalli>e into our la! !hat 1ustice ol#es sardonicall" describedas #erel" ideali>in$ env".5-

Si#ilarl", the :ustification that petitioner and its #e#bers represent the #ore i#potentran3 and file $overn#ent e#plo"ees !ho, unli3e e#plo"ees in the private sector, have nospecific ri$hts to or$ani>e as a collective bar$ainin$ unit and ne$otiate for better ter#s andconditions for e#plo"#ent, nor the po!er to hold a stri3e to protest unfair labor practicesis unconvincin$.


125/178

or instance, the Supre#e Court is tr"in$ its best to alleviate the financial difficultiesof courts, :ud$es, and court personnel in the entire countr" but it can do so onl"!ithin the li#its of bud$etar" appropriations. Public school teachers have beenresortin$ to !hat !as for#erl" unthin3able, to #ass leaves and de#onstrations, to$et not a -0th9#onth pa" but pro#ised increases in basic salaries and s#allallo!ances for school unifor#s.


126/178

7 7 7

Sec&(o! 9, Ar&(c'e --7B o &/e Co!*&(&3&(o! $(ation of co#pensationof $overn#ent officials and e#plo"ees, includin$ those in $overn#ent9o!ned orcontrolled corporations, ta3in$ into account the nature of the responsibilitiespertainin$ to, and the %ualifications re%uired for the positions concerned.

-& (* &/e 'e$(*'#&3re or, (! )ro)er c#*e*, &/e #m

central bank employees v bsp.doc

Documents