The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by five surviving spouses of deceased Philippine National Police (PNP) officers who challenged the constitutionality of the second paragraph of Section 35 of Republic Act No. 8551, the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998. The Court held that the provision does not violate the equal protection clause.
The Case
The petitioners were Reny M. Romasanta, Amelita C. Bermejo, Juvy B. Servanda, Maria Soledad U. Indoyan, and Nilda A. Asico. All are surviving legitimate spouses of deceased PNP officers who retired from the service due to total permanent physical disability (TPPD) after more than 20 years of service.
Reny's husband, SPO4 Artemio M. Romasanta, was diagnosed with diabetes and kidney failure and was certified as no longer fit to work due to TPPD. He retired on August 4, 2003 after serving 28 years, seven months, and 19 days, and died on November 15, 2009.
Amelita's husband, SPO4 Errologio G. Bermejo, experienced a stroke while on duty at the Maritime Command and retired on June 7, 1999 due to TPPD after 21 years, 10 months, and six days of service. He died on May 22, 2008.
Juvy's husband, SPO3 Dante G. Servanda, fell into a river during a narcotics operation, sustaining a fracture and other conditions. NAPOLCOM approved his TPPD retirement on January 31, 2005 after 29 years, five months, and 11 days. He died on November 15, 2015.
Sol's husband, PSUPT Florendo Indoyon, was diagnosed with end-stage kidney disease. He retired due to TPPD on April 16, 2015 after 22 years, 11 months, and 15 days of active service, and died on November 8, 2016.
Nilda's husband, SPO2 Antonio D. Asico, was diagnosed with bone cancer and heart complications. He availed of TPPD retirement effective August 23, 2004 after 26 years, one month, and 20 days. He died on November 13, 2014.
The petitioners sought to assail the constitutionality of the provision and to compel the PNP Retirement and Benefits Administration Service to grant them retirement benefits or pensions as surviving widows.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether the second paragraph of Section 35 of Republic Act No. 8551 violates the equal protection clause. This included the broader challenge to whether the law unconstitutionally treats TPPD retirees differently from compulsory and optional retirees, as well as the petitioners' contention that the provision unreasonably distinguishes between TPPD retirees who die within five years of retirement, whose pensions may be transferred to their heirs, and those who die after who are denied this benefit.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners. Its disposition stated: "ACCORDINGLY, the Amended Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is DISMISSED."
The Court held that the classification under the law is not only reasonable but also consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, as it guarantees fairness and uniformity within the class.
By the Numbers
- SPO4 Romasanta: retired August 4, 2003; 28 years, 7 months, 19 days of service; died November 15, 2009; pension of 6 years, 3 months, 11 days.
- SPO4 Bermejo: retired June 7, 1999; 21 years, 10 months, 6 days of service; died May 22, 2008; pension of 8 years, 11 months, 15 days.
- SPO3 Servanda: retired January 31, 2005; 29 years, 5 months, 11 days of service; died November 15, 2015; pension of 10 years, 9 months, 15 days.
- PSUPT Indoyon: retired April 16, 2015; 22 years, 11 months, 15 days of service; died November 8, 2016; pension of 1 year, 6 months, 23 days.
- SPO2 Asico: retired August 23, 2004; 26 years, 1 month, 20 days of service; died November 13, 2014; pension of 10 years, 2 months, 21 days.
- Section 35 grants a lifetime pension equivalent to 80% of last salary, plus a five-year guaranteed period for surviving spouses if the retiree dies within five years.
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that the grant of benefits to compulsory and optional retirees is certain — either by operation of law upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 56, or by an elective act upon completion of at least 20 years of satisfactory active service. In contrast, the grant of benefits to TPPD retirees is uncertain, comparable to conditional obligations, since a police officer is not expected to become totally and permanently disabled. The Court found the two groups are not similarly situated.
The classification, according to the Court, is germane to the purpose of the law under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8551, which declares the State policy of establishing a highly efficient and competent police force. The Court noted the classification is not limited to existing conditions, applies prospectively to all members of the police force, and now applies equally to all members within the same class, as all TPPD retirees are treated uniformly without distinction as to length of service.
The Court added that Section 40 of Republic Act No. 6975 remains operative, granting any police officer the privilege of optional retirement upon completion of at least 20 years of satisfactory active service — an option the petitioners' husbands could have exercised but chose not to.
On the five-year guaranteed period, the Court held the provision does not create distinctions but offers an added layer of protection. It noted that, with the exception of PSUPT Indoyon, all of the petitioners' husbands received pensions for between six to 10 years after retirement until their deaths, well beyond the five-year guaranteed period, and that petitioner Sol did not allege she was deprived of the pension corresponding to the unexpired portion of the five-year guarantee period.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 256201, promulgated October 21, 2025, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.