GR L-23326, 18 December 1965

Philippine Constitutional Association (PHILCONSA) vs Gimenez

Facts:

The petitioners assail the validity of RA 3836 and filed this Petition for
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction to restrain the Auditor General of the
Philippines and the disbursing officers of both Houses of Congress from passing in
audit the payment to any former member of the Congress of retirement and vacation
gratuities.

RA 3836 is assailed on the grounds that:

(a) the provision for the retirement benefits of the members of Congress is not
expressed in the title of the bill;

(b) the provision on retirement gratuity is an attempt to circumvent the Constitutional

prohibition on increase of salaries during their term of office;

(c) it is deemed a “selfish class legislation” because it allows members and officers
of Congress to retire after twelve (12) years of service, the retirement benefits
not refundable in case of re-election or re-instatement;

(d) the provision on vacation and sick leave commutable at the highest rate
received manifest an attempt to increase their compensation.

(e) a violation of the Constitution. RA 3836 provides under sec 1 thereof a special
retirement grant to Senators or members of the House of Representatives who
are not members of the GSIS to be, under sec 2, effective “upon its approval.”
and provides benefits to its members CA 186 establishes the GSIS and provides
for both retirement and insurance benefits of its members.

The Solicitor General questioned the locus standi of Philconsa to file the suit.

Issues:

1. Whether Philconsa has a standing to institute this action.

2. Whether or not RA 3836 falls within the prohibition embodied in Article VI,
Section 14 of the Constitution.

3. Whether or not RA 3836 violates the equal protection clause.

4. Whether or not the title of RA 3836 is germane to the subject matter expressed
in the act.

Ruling:
1. Yes. Philconsa, a non-profit, civic organization composed of several leaders
from all walks of life whose main objective is to uphold the principles of the
Constitution, has legal standing to institute the action as substantial taxpayers in
preventing the illegal expenditure of public funds.

2. Yes. The provisions of RA 3836 falls squarely within the prohibition set forth in
Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution.

3. Yes. The assailed feature in RA 3836 are patently discriminatory and therefore
violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. All government officers
and employees are given only one retirement benefit irrespective of their length
of service.

4. No. The title of RA 3836 is void and is not germane to the subject matter in
violation of Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution which provides
that no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject
which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.

RA 3836 is declared null and void with respect to the retirement of Members of
Congress and the elected officials thereof, as being unsconstituional.