CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. BSP G.R. No. 148208, 446 SCRA 299, December 15, 2004

 

CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. BSP (2004) | EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

G.R. No. 148208, 446 SCRA 299, December 15, 2004

Doctrines:

1.      Elements of valid class legislation: (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class

2.      Relative Constitutionality. The fact that a statute is constitutional at first does not mean it is constitutional forever. The subsequent changes in the original circumstance surrounding the law would affect its validity.

 

Facts:

1.      The new Central Bank Act took effect and gave way for the creation of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

2.      Other Governmental Financial Institutions (GFIs) also amended their charters.

3.      After almost 8 years following the amendment of the GFIs’ charters, BSP’s employees, through petitioner, filed a petition for prohibition against the BSP and the Executive Secretary to restrain the respondents from further implementing the last proviso in Sec. 15, Art. II of the New Central Bank Act (i.e., the exemption from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) of all employees with salary grade of 19 and the non-exemption of those having a salary grade under 19). They alleged its constitutionality for being an invalid “class legislation”.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

1.      The said proviso violates equal protection clause because only the officers of the BSP (those holding the salary grade of 19 and up) are exempted from the SSL.

2.      Those belonging from 19 and up and those 19 below do not really differ from one other in terms of the nature of work and expertise.

3.      Other GFIs, which are the same as the BSP, exempt all their rank-and-file personnel from SSL without any distinction.

BSP’s contention:

1.      The proviso is not unconstitutional as it can stand the constitutional test, provided it is construed in harmony with other provisions of the same law, such as the mandate of the Monetary Board to “establish professionalism and excellence at all levels in accordance with sound principles of management.”

Solicitor General, on behalf of respondent Executive Secretary:

1.      The proviso is not unconstitutional as the classification is based on actual and real differentiation, even as it adheres to the enunciated policy of the new SB Act to establish professionalism and excellence within the BSP subject to prevailing laws and policies of the national government.

Issue: WON the proviso is unconstitutional for being violative of equal protection clause.

Held:

·         YES, the proviso is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause.

·         Equal protection clause does not prevent the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate – so long as the classification is not unreasonable. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons themselves, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights.

·         In the case at bar, it is clear in the legislative deliberations that the exemption of officers (SG 20 and above) from the SSL was intended to address the BSP’s lack of competitiveness in terms of attracting competent officers and executives. It was not intended to discriminate against the rank-and-file and the resulting discrimination or distinction has a rational basis and is not palpably, purely, and entirely arbitrary in the legislative sense. However, in the subsequent passages of the amendment on the charters of other GFI, the surrounding circumstances of the case changed.

·         The subsequent amendments of the other GFIs’ charter (i.e., express authorization to determine and institute its own compensation and wage structure, and explicit exemption – without distinction as to salary grade or position – all employees of the GFI from the SSL) resulted to the oppressive results of Congress’ inconsistent and unequal policy towards the BSP rank-and-file and those of the seven other GFI. In the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that as regards the exemption from the SSL, there are no characteristics peculiar only to the seven GFIs or their rank-and-file so as to justify the exemption which BSP rank-and-file employees were denied (not to mention the anomaly of the SEC getting one). The distinction made by the law is not only superficial, but also arbitrary. It is not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences between the BSP rank-and-file and the seven other GFIs.

·         The subsequent grant to the rank-and-file of the seven other GFIs and continued denial to the BSP rank-and-file employees of the exemption from SSL breached the latter’s right to equal protection.

·         The equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality but it requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.