9/17/2015 G.R. No.

L-23326

TodayisThursday,September17,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L23326December18,1965

PHILIPPINECONSTITUTIONASSOCIATION,INC.,JOSEE.ROMERO,SALVADORARANETA,GUILLERMO
B.GUEVARA,PIOPEDROSA,CONRADOBENITEZ,JOSEM.ARUEGO,SOTEROH.LAUREL,FELIXBERTO
M.SERRANO,andROMANOZAETA,petitioners,
vs.
PEDROM.GIMENEZ,JOSEVELASCO,ELADIOSALITAandJOSEAVILES,respondents.

RomanOzaeta,GuillermoB.Guevara,JoseM.Aruego,SoteroH.LaurelandFelixbertoM.Serranoforthemselves
andforotherpetitioners.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.

REGALA,J.:

WearecalleduponinthiscasetodecidethegraveandfundamentalproblemoftheconstitutionalityofRepublicAct
No.3836"insofarasthesameallowsretirementgratuityandcommutationofvacationandsickleavetoSenators
and Representatives, and to the elective officials of both houses (of Congress)." The suit was instituted by the
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. (Philconsa, for short), a nonprofit civic organization, duly incorporated
underPhilippinelaws,bywayofapetitionforprohibitionwithpreliminaryinjunctiontorestraintheAuditorGeneralof
the Philippines and the disbursing officers of both Houses of Congress from "passing in audit the vouchers, and
fromcountersigningthechecksortreasurywarrantsforthepaymenttoanyformerSenatororformerMemberofthe
House of Representatives of retirement and vacation gratuities pursuant to Republic Act No. 3836 and likewise
restrainingtherespondentdisbursingofficersoftheHouseandSenate,respectively,andtheirsuccessorsinoffice
frompayingthesaidretirementandvacationgratuities."

It is argued that the abovenumbered Republic Act, at least to the end that it provided for the retirement of the
members of Congress in the manner and terms that it did, is unconstitutional and void. The challenge to the
constitutionalityofthelawiscenteredonthefollowingpropositions:

1.TheprovisionfortheretirementofthemembersandcertainofficersofCongressisnotexpressedinthe
titleofthebill,inviolationofsection21(1)ofArticleVIoftheConstitution.

2. The provision on retirement gratuity is an attempt to circumvent the Constitutional ban on increase of
salaries of the members of Congress during their term of office, contrary to the provisions of Article VI,
Section14oftheConstitution.

3. The same provision constitutes "selfish class legislation" because it allows members and officers of
Congresstoretireaftertwelve(12)yearsofserviceandgivesthemagratuityequivalenttooneyearsalary
foreveryfouryearsofservice,whichisnotrefundableincaseofreinstatementorreelectionoftheretiree,
while all other officers and employees of the government can retire only after at least twenty (20) years of
serviceandaregivenagratuitywhichisonlyequivalenttoonemonthsalaryforeveryyearofservice,which,
inanycase,cannotexceed24months.

4.Theprovisiononvacationandsickleave,commutableatthehighestratereceived,insofarasmembersof
Congress are concerned, is another attempt of the legislators to further increase their compensation in
violationoftheConstitution.

ThetextofRepublicActNo.3836

ThetextofRepublicActNo.3836reads:

ANACTAMENDINGSUBSECTION(c),SECTIONTWELVEOFCOMMONWEALTHACTNUMBEREDONE
HUNDRED EIGHTYSIX, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED NINETY

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 1/8
9/17/2015 G.R. No. L-23326
SIX:

BeitenactedbytheSenateandHouseofRepresentativesofthePhilippinesinCongressassembled:

SECTION 1. Subsection (c), Section twelve of Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred eightysix, as
amendedbyRepublicActNumberedThirtyhundredninetysix,isfurtheramendedtoreadasfollows:

"(c)Retirementislikewiseallowedtoamember,regardlessofage,whohasrenderedatleasttwentyyearsof
service.Thebenefitshall,inadditiontothereturnofhispersonalcontributionsplusinterestandthepayment
ofthecorrespondingemployer'spremiumsdescribedinsubsection(a)ofSectionfivehereof,withoutinterest,
be only a gratuity equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service, based on the highest rate
received,butnottoexceedtwentyfourmonths:Provided,Thattheretiringofficeroremployeehasbeenin
theserviceofthesaidemployerorofficeforatleastfouryearsimmediatelyprecedinghisretirement.

"Retirement is also allowed to a senator or a member of the House of Representatives and to an elective
officerofeitherHouseoftheCongress,regardlessofage,providedthatinthecaseofaSenatororMember,
he must have served at least twelve years as a Senator and/or as a member of the House of
Representatives,and,inthecaseofanelectiveofficerofeitherHouse,hemusthaveservedthegovernment
foratleasttwelveyears,notlessthanfouryearsofwhichmusthavebeenrenderedassuchelectiveofficer:
Provided,Thatthegratuitypayabletoaretiringsenator,memberoftheHouseofRepresentatives,orelective
officer, of either House, shall be equivalent to one year's salary for every four years of service in the
governmentandthesameshallbeexemptfromanytaxwhatsoeverandshallbeneitherliabletoattachment
orexecutionnorrefundableincaseofreinstatementorreelectionoftheretiree.

"This gratuity is payable by the employer or office concerned which is hereby authorized to provide the
necessary appropriation or pay the same from any unexpended items of appropriations or savings in its
appropriationsorsavinginitsappropriations.

"Elective or appointive officials and employees paid gratuity under this subsection shall be entitled to the
commutationoftheunusedvacationandsickleave,basedonthehighestratereceived,whichtheymayhave
totheircreditatthetimeofretirement."

SECTION2.ThisActshalltakeeffectuponitsapproval.

Approved,June22,1963.

The Solicitor General's Office, in representation of the respondent, filed its answer on September 8, 1964, and
contends,bywayofspecialandaffirmativedefensesthat:

1.ThegrantofretirementorpensionbenefitsunderRepublicActNo.3836totheofficersobjectedtobythe
petitionerdoesnotconstitute"forbiddencompensation"withinthemeaningofSection14ofArticleVIofthe
PhilippineConstitution.

2. The title of the law in question sufficiently complies with the provisions of Section 21, Article VI, of the
Constitutionthat"nobillwhichmaybeenactedintolawshallembracemorethanonesubjectwhichshallbe
expressedinthetitleofthebill.

3.Thelawinquestiondoesnotconstitutelegislation.

4.Certainindispensableparties,specificallytheelectedofficersofCongresswhoareauthorizedtoapprove
vouchersforpaymentsforfundsunderthelawinquestion,andtheclaimantstothevoucherstobepresented
forpaymentundersaiditems,werenotincludedinthepetition.

5.Thepetitionerhasnostandingtoinstitutethissuit.

6.ThepaymentofcommutablevacationandsickleavebenefitsunderthesaidActismerely"inthenatureof
a basis for computing the gratuity due each retiring member" and, therefore, is not an indirect scheme to
increasetheirsalary.

AbriefhistoricalbackgroundofRepublicActNo.3836

Republic Act No. 3836 was originally House Bill No. 6051, which was introduced by Congressmen Marcial R.
PimentelofCamarinesNorteandMarcelinoR.VelosooftheThirdDistrictofLeyte,onMay6,1963.Onthesame
date,itwasreferredtotheCommitteeonCivilService.whichonthefollowingMay8,submitteditsREPORTNo.
3129, recommending approval of the bill with amendments, among others, that the word "TWENTY" in the bill as
filed representing the number of years that a senator or member must serve in Congress to entitle him to
retirement under the bill must be reduced to "TWELVE" years, and that the following words were inserted,
namely,"ANDTHESAME(referringtogratuity)SHALLBEEXEMPTFROMANYTAXWHATSOEVERANDSHALL
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 2/8
9/17/2015 G.R. No. L-23326
NOT BE LIABLE FROM ATTACHMENT OR EXECUTION NOR REFUNDABLE IN CASE OF REINSTATEMENT
ORREELECTIONOFTHERETIREE."OnMay8,1963,thebillwiththeproposedamendmentswasapprovedon
second reading. It was passed on third reading on May 13, 1963, and on the same day was sent to the Senate,
which,inturn,onMay23,1963,passeditwithoutamendment.ThebillwasfinallyapprovedonJune22,1963.As
explainedintheEXPLANATORYNOTEattachedtothebill,amongothers

The inclusion of members of Congress in subsection (c), Section 12 of C.A. 186, as amended, will enable
them to retire voluntarily, regardless of age, after serving a minimum of twenty years as a Member of
Congress.ThisgratuitywillinsurethesecurityofthefamilyoftheretiringmemberofCongresswiththelatter
engaging in other activities which may detract from his exalted position and usefulness as lawmaker. It is
expectedthatwiththisassuranceofsecurityforhislovedones,deservingandwellintentionedbutpoormen
willbeattractedtoservetheirpeopleinCongress.

Asfinallyapproved,thelaw(Subsection[c],paragraph2,Section1,R.A.3836)allowsaSenatororaMemberof
theHouseofRepresentativesandanelectiveofficerofeitherHouseofCongresstoretireregardlessofage.Tobe
eligible for retirement, he must have served for at least twelve years as such Senator and/or as member of the
HouseofRepresentatives.ForanelectiveofficerofeitherHouse,hemusthaveservedthegovernmentforatleast
twelve years, of which not less than four years must have been rendered as such elective officer. The gratuity
payablebytheemployerorofficeconcernedisequivalenttooneyear'ssalaryforeveryfouryearsofserviceinthe
government.Saidgratuityisexemptfromtaxation,notliabletoattachmentorexecution,andnotrefundableincase
ofreinstatementorreelectionoftheretiree.

FirstlegalpointpersonalityofthePetitionertobringsuit.

ThefirstpointtobeconsiderediswhetherpetitionerPhilconsahasastandingtoinstitutethisaction.ThisCourthas
not hesitated to examine past decisions involving this matter. This Court has repeatedly held that when the
petitioner, like in this case, is composed of substantial taxpayers, and the outcome will affect their vital interests,
theyareallowedtobringthissuit.(Pascualv.Secretary,G.R.No.L10405,December29,1960andGonzalesv.
Hechanova,60Off.Gaz.802[1963]).

Thepetitioner,Philconsa,ispreciselyanonprofit,civicorganizationcomposedofseveralleadersfromallwalksof
lifewhosemainobjectiveistoupholdtheprinciplesoftheConstitution.

InrejectingthemotiontodismissinthecaseofPascualv.Secretary,supra,thisCourtstated,amongotherthings,
that"therearemanydecisionsnullifying,attheinstanceofthetaxpayers,lawsprovidingthedisbursementofpublic
funds,uponthetheorythattheexpenditureofpublicfundsbyanofficeroftheStateforthepurposeofadministering
an unconstitutional act constitutes a misappropriation of such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of the
taxpayers."1Thislegislation(RepublicAct3836)involvesthedisbursementofpublicfunds.

Wearenot,however,unmindfuloftherulinglaiddownbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesinthecaseof
Massachusettsv.Mellon,262U.S.447,holdingthat:

...therelationofataxpayeroftheUnitedStatestotheFederalGovernmentisverydifferent.Hisinterestin
themoneysoftheTreasurypartlyrealizedfromtaxationandpartlyfromothersourcesissharedwith
millions of others is comparatively minute and indeterminable and the effect upon future taxation of any
paymentoutofthefunds,soremote,fluctuatinganduncertain,thatnobasisisaffordedforanappealtothe
preventivepowersofequity.

ThegeneralviewintheUnitedStates,whichisfollowedhere,isstatedintheAmericanJurisprudence,thus

In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the
constitutionalityofastatutethegeneralruleisthatnotonlypersonsindividuallyaffected,butalsotaxpayers
havesufficientinterestinpreventingtheillegalexpenditureofmoneysraisedbytaxationandmaytherefore
questiontheconstitutionalityofstatutesrequiringexpenditureofpublicmoneys.(11Am.Jur.761emphasis
supplied.)

Asfarasthefirstpointisconcerned,Wehold,therefore,thatthecontentionoftheSolicitorGeneralisuntenable.

SecondlegalpointWhetherornotRepublicActNo.3836fallswithintheprohibitionembodiedinArt.VI,section
14oftheConstitution.

The first constitutional question is whether Republic Act 3836 violates Section 14, Article VI, of the Constitution,
whichreadsasfollows:

The senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law,
receiveanannualcompensationofseventhousandtwohundredpesoseach,includingperdiemsandother
emolumentsorallowances,andexclusiveonlyoftravellingexpensestoandfromtheirrespectivedistrictsin

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 3/8
9/17/2015 G.R. No. L-23326
thecaseofMembersoftheHouseofRepresentativeandtoandfromtheirplacesofresidenceinthecaseof
Senators,whenattendingsessionsoftheCongress.Noincreaseinsaidcompensationshalltakeeffectuntil
after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
approvingsuchincrease.Untilotherwiseprovidedbylaw,thePresidentoftheSenateandtheSpeakerofthe
HouseofRepresentativesshalleachreceiveanannualcompensationofsixteenthousandpesos(emphasis
supplied)

Before discussing this point, it is worthy to note that the Constitution embodies some limitations and prohibitions
uponthemembersofCongress,towit:

1.They may not hold any other office or employment in the Government without forfeiting their respective
seats

2.Theyshallnotbeappointed,duringthetimeforwhichtheyareelected,toanycivilofficewhichmayhave
beencreatedortheemolumentswhereofshallhavebeenincreasedwhiletheyweremembersofCongress
(Section16,ArticleVI,Constitution)

3.Theycannotbefinanciallyinterestedinanyfranchise

4.TheycannotappearinanycivilcasewhereintheGovernmentisanadverseparty

5.TheycannotappearascounselbeforeanyElectoralTribunaland

6.TheycannotappearascounselinanycriminalcasewhereanofficeroremployeeoftheGovernmentis
accused.(Section17,ArticleVI,Constitution)

Inadditiontotheaboveprohibitions,theAntiGraftLaw(RepublicAct3019)alsoprohibitsmembersofCongressto
haveanyspecialinterestinanyspecificbusinesswhichwilldirectlyorindirectlybefavoredbyanylaworresolution
authoredbythemduringtheirtermofoffice.

It is thus clear that the Constitutional Convention wisely surrounded the Constitution with these limitations and
prohibitionsuponMembersofCongress.Thisisapracticaldemonstrationorapplicationoftheprincipleoftheand
balances which is one of the peculiar characteristics of our Constitution. In the light of this background, can We
concludethatCongresscanvalidlyenactRepublicAct3836,providingretirementbenefitstoitsmembers,without
violatingtheprovisionsintheaforementionedArticleVI,Section14,oftheConstitution,regardingincreaseofthe
compensationactincludingotheremoluments?

ItisworthytonotethattheoriginalsalaryforthemembersoftheNationalAssembly(unicameralbody)wasfixedat
P5,000.00 per annum each. This was raised to P7,200 per annum by the enactment of the 1940 Constitutional
amendment, when the unicameral body, the National Assembly, was changed to Congress, composed of two
bodies,theSenateandtheHouseofRepresentatives.Again,in1964,bytheenactmentofRepublicAct4143,the
salaryfortheMembersofCongresswasraisedtoP32,000.00perannumforeachofthemandforthePresidentof
theSenateandtheSpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives,toP40,000.00perannumeach.

Likewise, it is significant that, as stated above, when the Constitutional Convention first determined the
compensationfortheMembersofCongress,theamountfixedbyitwasonlyP5,000.00perannum,butitembodies
a special proviso which reads as follows: "No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the members of the National Assembly elected subsequent to approval of such
increase."Inotherwords,undertheoriginalconstitutionalprovisionregardingthepoweroftheNationalAssemblyto
increasethesalariesofitsmembers,noincreasewouldtakeeffectuntilaftertheexpirationofthefulltermofthe
membersoftheAssemblyelectedsubsequenttotheapprovalofsuchincrease.(SeeAruego,TheFramingofthe
Constitution,Vol.1,pp.296300Sinco,PhilippineGovernmentandPoliticalLaw,4thed.,p.187)

This goes to show how zealous were the members of the Constitutional Convention in guarding against the
temptationformembersofCongresstoincreasetheirsalaries.However,theoriginalstrictprohibitionwasmodified
bythesubsequentprovisionwhentheConstitutionalamendmentswereapprovedin19402

TheConstitutionalprovisionintheaforementionedSection14,ArticleVI,includesinthetermcompensation"other
emoluments." This is the pivotal point on this fundamental question as to whether the retirement benefits as
providedforinRepublicAct3836fallwithinthepurviewoftheterm"otheremoluments."

Most of the authorities and decided cases have regarded "emolument" as "the profit arising from office or
employmentthatwhichisreceivedascompensationforservicesorwhichisannexedtothepossessionofanoffice,
assalary,feesandperquisites.3

Inanothersetofcases,"emolument"hasbeendefinedas"theprofitarisingfromofficeoremploymentthatwhichis
received as compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office, as salary, fees and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 4/8
9/17/2015 G.R. No. L-23326
perquisitesadvantage,gain,publicorprivate."Thegain,profitoradvantagewhichiscontemplatedinthedefinition
orsignificanceoftheword"emolument"asappliedtopublicofficers,clearlycomprehends,Wethink,again,profit,
oradvantagewhichispecuniaryincharacter.(citingTaxpayers'LeagueofCargonCountyv.McPherson,54P.2d.
897,90l.:49Wy.26106A.L.R.767)

InSchieffelinv.Berry,216N.Y.S.(citingWrightv.Craig,202App.Div.684,195N.Y.S.391,affirmed234N.Y.548,
138N.E.441),ithasbeenestablishedthatpensionsandretirementallowancesarepartofcompensationofpublic
officialsotherwisetheirpaymentwouldbeunconstitutional.

Inanothercase,Statev.Schmahl,145N.W.795,125Minn.104,itisstatedthat"asusedinArticle4,section9,of
theConstitutionofMinnesota,providingthatnoSenatororRepresentativeshallholdanyoffice,theemolumentsof
which have been increased during the session of the Legislature of which he was a member, until after the
expirationofhistermofofficeintheLegislature,theword"emoluments"doesnotrefertothefixedsalaryalone,but
includesfeesandcompensationastheincumbentoftheofficeisbylawentitledtoreceivebecauseheholdssuch
officeandperformedsomeservicerequiredoftheoccupantthereof."

Fromthedecisionsofthesecases,itisevidentthatretirementbenefitisaformoranotherspeciesofemolument,
becauseitisapartofcompensationforservicesofonepossessinganyoffice.

Republic Act No. 3836 provides for an increase in the emoluments of Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives, to take effect upon the approval of said Act, which was on June 22, 1963. Retirement benefits
were immediately available thereunder, without awaiting the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. Such provision clearly runs counter to the
prohibitioninArticleVI,Section14oftheConstitution.

ThirdLegalPointWhetherornotthelawinquestionviolatestheequalprotectionclauseoftheConstitution.

Another reason in support of the conclusion reached herein is that the features of said Republic Act 3836 are
patentlydiscriminatory,andthereforeviolatetheequalprotectionclauseoftheConstitution.(Art.III,Sec.1,part.1.)

In the first place, while the said law grants retirement benefits to Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives who are elective officials, it does not include other elective officials such as the governors of
provinces and the members of the provincial boards, and the elective officials of the municipalities and chartered
cities.

TheprincipleofequalprotectionoflawembodiedinourConstitutionhasbeenfullyexplainedbyUsinthecaseof
People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 126, where We stated that the classification to be reasonable must be based upon
substantialdistinctionswhichmakerealdifferencesandmustbegermanetothepurposesofthelaw.

AswellstatedbyWilloughbyontheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates(secondedition),p.1937,theprincipleofthe
requirement of equal protection of law applies to all persons similarly situated. Why limit the application of the
benefits of Republic Act 3836 to the elected members of Congress? We feel that the classification here is not
reasonable.(SeealsoSinco,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,11thed.[1962]SelectedEssaysonConstitutionalLaw[1938
62],p.789TheEqualProtectionoftheLaws,37Cal.LawRev.341.)

Secondly, all members of Congress under Republic Act 3836 are given retirement benefits after serving twelve
years,notnecessarilycontinuous,whereas,mostgovernmentofficersandemployeesaregivenretirementbenefits
afterservingforatleasttwentyyears.Infact,theoriginalbillofAct3836providedfortwentyyearsofservice.

Inthethirdplace,allgovernmentofficersandemployeesaregivenonlyoneretirementbenefitirrespectiveoftheir
lengthofserviceinthegovernment,whereas,underRepublicAct3836,becauseofnoagelimitation,aSenatoror
MemberoftheHouseofRepresentativesuponbeingelectedfor24yearswillbeentitledtotworetirementbenefits
orequivalenttosixyears'salary.

Also, while the payment of retirement benefits (annuity) to an employee who had been retired and reappointed is
suspendedduringhisnewemployment(underCommonwealthAct186,asamended),thisisnotsounderRepublic
Act3836.

Lastly, it is peculiar that Republic Act 3836 grants retirement benefits to officials who are not members of the
Government Service Insurance System. Most grantees of retirement benefits under the various retirement laws
havetobemembersormustatleastcontributeaportionoftheirmonthlysalariestotheSystem.4

TheargumentsadvancedagainstthediscriminatoryfeaturesofRepublicAct3836,asfarasMembersofCongress
are concerned, apply with equal force to the elected officers of each House, such as the Secretaries and the
Sergeantsatarms.UnderRepublicAct3836,theSecretariesandSergeantsatarmsofeachHousearegiventhe
benefitsofretirementwithouthavingservedfortwentyyearsasrequiredwithotherofficersandemployeesofthe
Government.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 5/8
9/17/2015 G.R. No. L-23326
FourthLegalPointWhetherornotthetitleofRepublicActNo.3836isgermanetothesubjectmatterexpressed
intheact.

AnotherConstitutionalpointtodetermineiswhetherthetitleofRepublicAct3836complieswiththerequirementof
paragraph1,section21,ArticleVIoftheConstitution,whichreadsasfollows:

Nobillwhichmaybeenactedintolawshallembracemorethanonesubjectwhichshallbeexpressedinthe
titleofthebill.

Wearenotunmindfulofthefactthattherehasbeenageneraldispositioninallcourtstoconstruetheconstitutional
provisionwithreferencetothesubjectandtitleoftheAct,liberally.

ItisthecontentionofpetitionerthatthesaidtitleofRepublicAct3836givesnoinklingornoticewhatsoevertothe
public regarding the retirement gratuities and commutable vacation and sick leave privileges to members of
Congress.ItisclaimedthatpetitionerlearnedofthislawforthefirsttimeonlywhenJoseVelasco,disbursingofficer
oftheHouse,testifiedonJanuary30,1964,beforeJusticeLabrador,inconnectionwiththehearingofthecase,and
herevealedthatin1963,Congressenactedtheretirementlawforitsmembers.InfacttheAppropriationActforthe
fiscalyear196465,RepublicActNo.4164,provides:

13.ForpaymentofretirementgratuitiesofmembersoftheSenatepursuanttotheprovisionsofRepublicAct
No.3836: PROVIDED, That no portion of this Appropriation shall be transferred to any other item until all
approvedclaimsshallhavebeenpaidP210,000.00.

IntheappropriationsfortheHouseofRepresentativesthefollowingitemsappear:

7. For government share of premiums on life insurance and retirement of Members and employees of the
HouseofRepresentatives,asprovidedforunderRepublicActNo.1616P300,000.00

8.Forpaymentofthecashcommutationoftheaccumulatedvacationandsickleavesasprovidedforunder
RepublicActNo.611,andretirementgratuitiesofMembersandemployeesoftheHouseofRepresentatives
underRepublicActNo.1616P1,300,000.00.

IntheAppropriationsActof19651966(RepublicActNo.4642),thefollowingitemappearsintheappropriationsfor
theSenate:

13.ForpaymentofretirementgratuitiesofSenatepersonnelpursuanttotheprovisionsofRepublicActNo.
1616: PROVIDED, That no portion of this appropriation shall be transferred to any other item until all
approvedclaimsshallhavebeenpaidP100,000.00.

It is thus clear that in the Appropriations Act for 19651966, the item in the Senate for P210,000.00 to implement
RepublicAct3836waseliminated.

IntheappropriationsfortheHouse(19651966),thefollowingitemsappear:

7. For government share of premiums on life insurance and retirement of Members and employees of the
HouseOfRepresentativesasprovidedforunderRepublicActNo.1616P1,200,000.00.

8.Forpaymentofthecashcommutationoftheaccumulatedvacationandsickleavesasprovidedforunder
RepublicActNo.611,andretirementgratuitiesofMembersandemployeesoftheHouseofRepresentatives
underRepublicActNo.1616P1,700,000.00.

It is to be observed that under Republic Act 3836, amending the first paragraph of section 12, subsection (c) of
CommonwealthAct186,asamendedbyRepublicActsNos.660and.3096,theretirementbenefitsaregrantedto
members of the Government Service Insurance System, who have rendered at least twenty years of service
regardlessofage.ThisparagraphisrelatedandgermanetothesubjectofCommonwealthActNo.186.

Ontheotherhand,thesucceedingparagraphofRepublicAct3836referstomembersofCongressandtoelective
officersthereofwhoarenotmembersoftheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem.Toprovideretirementbenefits,
therefore,fortheseofficials,wouldrelatetosubjectmatterwhichisnotgermanetoCommonwealthActNo.186.In
otherwords,thisportionoftheamendment(reretirementbenefitsforMembersofCongressandelectedofficers,
such as the Secretary and Sergeantsatarms for each House) is not related in any manner to the subject of
Commonwealth Act 186 establishing the Government Service Insurance System and which provides for both
retirementandinsurancebenefitstoitsmembers.

Parenthetically,itmaybeaddedthatthepurposeoftherequirementthatthesubjectofanActshouldbeexpressed
initstitleisfullyexplainedbyCooley,thus:(1)topreventsurpriseorfraudupontheLegislatureand(2)tofairly
apprisethepeople,throughsuchpublicationoflegislationthatarebeingconsidered,inorderthattheymayhavethe
opportunityofbeingheardthereonbypetitionorotherwise,iftheyshallsodesire(Cooley,ConstitutionalLimitations,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 6/8
9/17/2015 G.R. No. L-23326
8thed.,Vol.1,p.162SeealsoMartin,PoliticalLawReviewer,BookOne[1965],p.119)

WithrespecttosufficiencyoftitlethisCourthasruledintwocases:

TheConstitutionalrequirementwithrespecttotitlesofstatutesassufficienttoreflecttheircontentsissatisfied
if all parts of a law relate to the subject expressed in its title, and it is not necessary that the title be a
completeindexofthecontent.(Peoplev.Carlos,78Phil.535)

TheConstitutionalrequirementthatthesubjectofanactshallbeexpressedinitstitleshouldbereasonably
construed so as not to interfere unduly with the enactment of necessary legislation. It should be given a
practical,ratherthantechnical,construction.Itshouldbeasufficientcompliancewithsuchrequirementifthe
titleexpressesthegeneralsubjectandalltheprovisionsofthestatutearegermanetothatgeneralsubject.
(Sumulongv.TheCommissiononElections,73Phil.288,291)

TherequirementthatthesubjectofanactshallbeexpressedinitstitleiswhollyillustratedandexplainedinCentral
Capizv.Ramirez,40Phil.883.Inthiscase,thequestionraisedwaswhetherCommonwealthAct2784,knownas
the Public Land Act, was limited in its application to lands of the public domain or whether its provisions also
extended to agricultural lands held in private ownership. The Court held that the act was limited to lands of the
publicdomainasindicatedinitstitle,anddidnotincludeprivateagriculturallands.TheCourtfurtherstatedthatthis
provision of the Constitution expressing the subject matter of an Act in its title is not a mere rule of legislative
procedure, directory to Congress, but it is mandatory. It is the duty of the Court to declare void any statute not
conforming to this constitutional provision. (See Walker v. State, 49 Alabama 329 Cooley, Constitutional
Limitations,pp.1621645SeealsoAgcaoiliv.Suguitan,48Phil.676SutherlandonStatutoryConstruction,Sec.
111.)

InthelightofthehistoryandanalysisofRepublicAct3836,WeconcludethatthetitleofsaidRepublicAct3836is
void as it is not germane to the subject matter and is a violation of the aforementioned paragraph 1, section 21,
ArticleVIoftheConstitution.

Inshort,RepublicAct3836violatesthreeconstitutionalprovisions,namely:first,theprohibitionregardingincrease
inthesalariesofMembersofCongresssecond,theequalprotectionclauseandthird,theprohibitionthatthetitle
ofabillshallnotembracemorethanonesubject.

INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOINGCONSIDERATIONS,RepublicActNo.3836isherebydeclarednullandvoid,inso
farasitreferstotheretirementofMembersofCongressandtheelectedofficialsthereof,asbeingunconstitutional.
TherestrainingorderissuedinourresolutiononDecember6,1965isherebymadepermanent.Nocosts.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.

Barrera,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
1Kubbsv.Thompson,56N.E.2d761Reidv.Smith,375Ill.147,30N.E.2d908Fergusv.Russel,270Ill.
304, 110 N.E. 130 Burke v. Snively, 208 111. 328 Jones v. Connel, 266 Ill. 443, 107 N.E. 731 Dudick v.
Baumann,349111.46,181N.E690.
2Aruego,KnowYourConstitution,p.58.

3Realsv.Smith,56P.690,8Wy.159Applev.CrawfordCountry,105Pa.300,51Am.Rep.20514
Skly.NotesCas.322,41Leg.Int.322Vansantv.State,53A.711,714,6Md.110TownofBrucev.
Dickey,6N.E.435.
4InthecaseofJusticesoftheSupremeCourt,JusticesoftheCourtofAppeals,Judgesofcourtsofrecord
allcontributeacertainamounttotheGSIS,althoughunderadifferentplanofpremiumsfromothermembers
(SeeR.A.910,asamendedbyR.A.Nos.1057and2614).

InthecaseoftheArmedForces,officersandenlistedmenarealsomembersoftheSystembuttheir
retirementbenefitsareprovidedforunderR.A.340.

However, the Auditor General and the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Elections are
entitledtoretirementbenefits,underR.A.1568,notwithstandingthefactthattheyarenotmembersof
theSystem,providedtheyhaveatleast20yearsofservice.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 7/8
9/17/2015 G.R. No. L-23326
518thEdition,Vol.I.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/dec1965/gr_23326_1965.html 8/8