[A.M. No.

02-12-01- SC]

RE: RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTOMATIC PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS TO HEIRS OF

JUSTICES AND JUDGES WHO DIE IN ACTUAL SERVICE

November 24, 2004

People v. Jabinal: “Decisions of this Court, although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless
evidence of what the laws mean…”

FACTS

The facts relevant to the issuance of the Resolution are as follows;

Judge Calvan and Judge Real died. After their death, their widow, and children (in the case of Judge
Real), addressed a letter to the Court Administrator, requesting entitlement for a claim for
permanent total disability retirement benefits.

Both were approved by the SC. Although at first, the latter was denied based on some irregularities.
But it was later on treated and approved also. And so, the FMBO sent the DBM Secretary a request
for the issuance of SARO to cover the payment of the terminal leave and retirement gratuity benefits
of Supreme Court and lower court officials and employees.

The DBM responded disallowing the request. They contested that ‘death while in actual service’ and
‘retirement due to permanent physical disability’ are distinct and separate circumstances.
Wherefore, in treating these two as one and the same, and extending the benefits due to one to the
other may have expanded the clear intent of RA 910. Also, they emphasized their mandate to ensure
that disbursements are in made in accordance with law.

ISSUE/S

1) Was there basis for the DBM to disallow FMBO’s request for the release of funds in order to
cover the additional 5-year lump sum benefits of the late two (2) judges who both
unquestionably died while in actual service?

RULING

There is NONE. And so, the Court resolves to DIRECT the DBM to: (a) release the amounts
corresponding to the permanent total disability benefits to the heirs of Judges Calvan and Real
within ten (10) days from notice of the requests for SARO and NCA of the FMBO of this court, and (b)
implement the Resolution in all cases of death of Justices and Judges while in actual service.

It is found in RA No. 910 that there is a gap in that law. The gap prompted the Court to issue this
Resolution. Exercising its power, the court may construe a law by issuing resolutions in applying it. It
is to delineate what a law requires or to assist a government agency in its implementation. Once a
law is construed, such interpretation becomes a part of the law itself. In this resolution, the Court
construed the RA No. 910, considering death “while in actual service” to be encompassed by the
phrase “permanent physical disability”. Because “there is no more permanent or total physical
disability than death,” said Associate Justice Teehankee.

It is clearly stated in the Doctrine of Separation of Powers that the different branches of the
government have different functions. The power to apply, interpret, and construe the law is vested
to the Judiciary. The DBM is a part of the executive branch. The power to construe is not encroached
in their duties. Their duty is to execute the law.