Petitioner served three consecutive terms in the House of Representatives from 1957 to 1969. During his second term, a decision established that a salary increase for legislators to 32k would not take effect until 1969. Petitioner retired in 1969 and applied for retirement benefits based on the increased 32k salary rate. However, the Auditor General did not approve using the 32k rate for the retirement gratuity calculation. The Supreme Court ruled that the salary increase could not become effective until the terms of all approving members had expired in 1969. Therefore, the 7.2k salary rate must be used to calculate Petitioner's retirement gratuity, as using the higher 32k rate would constitute a prohibited emolument. The petition was dismissed.
Petitioner served three consecutive terms in the House of Representatives from 1957 to 1969. During his second term, a decision established that a salary increase for legislators to 32k would not take effect until 1969. Petitioner retired in 1969 and applied for retirement benefits based on the increased 32k salary rate. However, the Auditor General did not approve using the 32k rate for the retirement gratuity calculation. The Supreme Court ruled that the salary increase could not become effective until the terms of all approving members had expired in 1969. Therefore, the 7.2k salary rate must be used to calculate Petitioner's retirement gratuity, as using the higher 32k rate would constitute a prohibited emolument. The petition was dismissed.
Petitioner served three consecutive terms in the House of Representatives from 1957 to 1969. During his second term, a decision established that a salary increase for legislators to 32k would not take effect until 1969. Petitioner retired in 1969 and applied for retirement benefits based on the increased 32k salary rate. However, the Auditor General did not approve using the 32k rate for the retirement gratuity calculation. The Supreme Court ruled that the salary increase could not become effective until the terms of all approving members had expired in 1969. Therefore, the 7.2k salary rate must be used to calculate Petitioner's retirement gratuity, as using the higher 32k rate would constitute a prohibited emolument. The petition was dismissed.
TEEHANKEE, J. FACTS: Petitioner served as a member of the House for three consecutive four-year terms, from 1957 to 1969. During his second term, the PHILCONSA v Mathay decision of the Court was upheld, which declared that the salary-increase of legislators from 7.2k to 32k will only be operative in 1969 (the year Petitioner retired). Because he lost in his objective to be reelected for a fourth time, he retired in 1969 and applied for the retirement benefits under CA 186 as amended by RA 4968 which provided for retirement gratuity of any official or employee, appointive or elective, with a total of at least twenty years of service, the last three years of which are continuous on the basis therein provided "in case of employees based on the highest rate received and in case of elected officials on the rates of pay as provided by law." The HOR issued a treasury warrant in the sum of P122,429.86 in petitioner's favor as his retirement gratuity, using the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum of members of Congress. However, Respondent Auditor General did not approve such warrant, and returned for recomputation. Petitioner claims that his claim should not have been disallowed, because at the time of his retirement, the increased salary for members of Congress "as provided by law" (under RA 4134) was already P32,000.00 per annum. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner’s claim over his retirement gratuity should be computed on the basis of 32k (RA 4134). RULING: NO. The salary increase to 32k for members of Congress under RA 4134 could be operative only from December 30, 1969 for incoming members of Congress when the full term of all members of Congress (House and Senate) that approved the increase (such as petitioner) will have expired, by virtue of the constitutional mandate of Article VI, section 14 of the 1935 Constitution. Consequently, the rate of pay for members who retired in 1969, must necessarily be 7.2k. To grant them such retirement gratuity would be to pay them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond that which they were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their incumbency. As stressed by the Auditor General in his decision in the similar case of petitioner's colleague, ex-Congressman Singson, "(S)uch a scheme would contravene the Constitution for it would lead to the same prohibited result by enabling administrative authorities to do indirectly what cannot be done directly." Petition is DISMISSED.