Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kilusang Mayo Uno Case Notes

    Uploaded by

    GUILLAN AUDREY BALTAZAR
    60 views3 pages
    This case resolves a petition by Kilusang Mayo Uno challenging increases to Social Security System contribution rates and salary credits approved by the Social Security Commission. The petition requested an injunction but was denied for failing to show an invasion of rights or urgent need to prevent harm. The Court ruled the Social Security Commission had jurisdiction under the law to set contribution rates.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    KILUSANG_MAYO_UNO_CASE_NOTES_

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case resolves a petition by Kilusang Mayo Uno challenging increases to Social Security System contribution rates and salary credits approved by the Social Security Commission. The petition requested an injunction but was denied for failing to show an invasion of rights or urgent need to prevent harm. The Court ruled the Social Security Commission had jurisdiction under the law to set contribution rates.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    60 views3 pages

    Kilusang Mayo Uno Case Notes

    Uploaded by

    GUILLAN AUDREY BALTAZAR
    This case resolves a petition by Kilusang Mayo Uno challenging increases to Social Security System contribution rates and salary credits approved by the Social Security Commission. The petition requested an injunction but was denied for failing to show an invasion of rights or urgent need to prevent harm. The Court ruled the Social Security Commission had jurisdiction under the law to set contribution rates.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    [KILUSANG MAYO UNO] CASE

    NOTES
    Baltazar, Guillan Audrey M. | 1LM-3

    💡 Case Presentation

    This case of Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Hon. Aquino III resolves a Petition for Certiorari
    and Prohibition, praying that a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
    injunction be issued to annul the Social Security System premium hike.

    The Social Security Commission issued Resolution No. 262-s. 2013, which provided
    an increase in: (1) the Social Security System members' contribution rate from
    10.4% to 11%; and (2) the maximum monthly salary credit from ₱15,000.00 to
    ₱16,000.00.

    The President approved the increase

    However, Kilusang Mayo Uno, et al. filed this Petition for Certiorar and Prohibition,
    questioning the validity of the assailed issuances.

    Petitioners claim that the assailed issuances were issued per an unlawful delegation
    of power to respondent Social Security Commission based on Republic Act No.
    8282, or the Social Security Act, and that the delegation of the power had no
    adequate legal guidelines to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority.

    Petitioners also pray that a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
    injunction be issued to stop the implementation of the increase in contributions.

    💡 Ruling

    Petitioners have failed to show that there was an invasion of a material and
    substantial right, or that they were entitled to such a right. Moreover, they failed to

    [KILUSANG MAYO UNO] CASE NOTES 1


    show that "there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
    serious and irreparable damage." Accordingly, petitioners' prayer for the issuance of
    a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is denied.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Resolution Nos. 262-s. 2013
    and 711-s. 2013 issued by the Social Security Commission, as well as Circular No.
    2013-010 issued by the Social Security System, are valid. The prayer for the issuance
    of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is also DENIED.

    (Sections 4 and 5 of the Social Security Act are clear that the Social Security
    Commission has jurisdiction over any dispute arising from the law regarding
    coverage, benefits, contributions, and penalties. The law further provides that the
    aggrieved party must first exhaust all administrative remedies available before
    seeking review from the courts).
    - jurisdiction is determined by laws enacted by Congress. The doctrine of
    exhaustion of administrative remedies ensures that this legislative power is
    respected by courts. Courts cannot ignore Congress' determination that the Social
    Security Commission is the entity with jurisdiction over any dispute arising from
    the Social Security Act with respect to coverage, benefits, contributions, and
    penalties.

    💡 Fact Bank

    It would, thus, be premature for courts to take cognizance of the case prior to the
    exhaustion of remedies, not to mention it would violate the principle of separation of
    powers. Thus, in Rule 65 petitions, it is required that no other plain, speedy, or adequate
    remedy is available to the party.

    The application of actuarial calculations in the operation of a social system scheme


    requires the determination of benefits. To question the use of "actual calculations"
    as factor for fixing rates is to question the policy or wisdom of the legislature, which
    is a co-equal branch of government.

    As a component of the doctrine of separation of powers, courts must never go into


    the question of the wisdom of the policy of the law.

    [KILUSANG MAYO UNO] CASE NOTES 2


    Hence, the Social Security Act has validly delegated the power to fix the
    contribution rate and the minimum and maximum amounts for the monthly salary
    credits. It is within the scope of the Social Security Commission's power to fix them,
    as clearly laid out in the law.

    Going into the validity of respondents' actions, petitioners must show that the
    assailed issuances were made without any reference to any law, or that
    respondents knowingly issued resolutions in excess of the authority granted to them
    under the Social Security Act to constitute grave abuse of discretion.

    Any act of a government branch, agency, or instrumentality that violates a statute or


    a treaty is grave abuse of discretion. However, grave abuse of discretion pertains to
    acts of discretion exercised in areas outside an agency's granted authority and,
    thus, abusing the power granted to it. Moreover, it is the agency's exercise of its
    power that is examined and adjudged, not whether its application of the law is
    correct.

    Here, respondents were only complying with their duties under the Social Security
    Act when they issued the assailed issuances. There is no showing that respondents
    went beyond the powers under the law that amounts to lack of or in excess of their
    jurisdiction. Petitioners' claims are unsubstantiated and, as such, merit no finding of
    grave abuse of discretion.

    [KILUSANG MAYO UNO] CASE NOTES 3

    You might also like