Religious groups or organizations cannot invoke the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State or a person’s freedom of religion to exclude their officers or ministers from the coverage of the Social Security System (SSS) provided an employer-employee relationship exists.
“The provisions the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations encompass religious institutions. The nature of these (religious) associations does not bar the formation of an employer-employee relationship,” the SC said.
It traced the history of the SSS law in the country. It said that under the original SSS law in Republic Act No. 1161, "services performed in the employ of institutions organized for religious or charitable purposes were by express provisions of said Act excluded from coverage thereof."
“However, the exemption was deleted by R.A. No. 1792, which took effect in 1957. This clearly evinces legislative intent to include charitable and religious institutions within the scope of the law,” it said.
“Notably, the phrase expressly excluding religious organizations from the coverage of the SSS likewise does not appear in the pertinent SSS Law, i.e., R.A. No. 8282. Rather than the nature of an institution, coverage in the Social Security Law is predicated upon the existence of an employer-employee relationship,” it added.
The SC decision, which was released last April 1 and written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, denied the petition of The Salvation Army which challenged the rulings of both the Social Security Commission (SSC) in 2013 and the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2016.
The Salvation Army (petitioner) is an international evangelical Christian church and social welfare organization. It employs the use of military terminology in its organization, operations, and ministries, and registered in the Philippines as a non-stock, non-profit religious organization with headquarters in Malate, Manila.
Records showed that in 1962, The Salvation Army registered its officers as employees with the SSS. However, in 2005, it asked the SSS to convert the membership status of its officers from “employees” to “voluntary or self-employed.”
On Jan. 30, 2006, SSS denied the request. The religious organization elevated the issue before the SSC which also denied it. Likewise, on appeal before the CA, the appellate court sustained the ruling of the SSC. The SSS, SSC and CA ruled that The Salvation Army’s officers are covered by the SSS law and are entitled to all its benefits since an employer-employee relationship exists.
The group filed an appeal with the SC. It said the SSC and the CA committed serious errors of law with their ruling that its officers are considered ordinary employees despite evidence of the ecclesiastical nature of its relationship with them.
It also told the SC that the SSC and CA rulings disregarded the constitutional right of the officers to the free exercise of their religious belief and practice.
In resolving the issue, the SC said that while The Salvation Army is covered by the constitutional provision on the separation of Church and State, the separation “applies only to ecclesiastical affairs.”
“The Constitution delineates the boundaries between the two institutions in order to avoid encroachment by one against the other. Thus, the State is prohibited from meddling in the internal affairs of the Church. Likewise, it cannot favor a religion nor discriminate upon another. The Church, on the other hand, cannot interfere into purely secular matters. It cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and its citizens nor demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the country,” the SC said.
It said that an employer-employee relationship may exist between a religious organization and its officers or ministers. “It is the existence of this relationship that determines the status and triggers mandatory coverage under the SSS law,” it pointed out.
It cited its 1961 decision on the case filed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM) which pleaded for the exemption from the SSS law “all religious and charitable institutions and/or organizations, directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, operated by it. RCAM claimed that the SSS law “is a labor law that applies only to businesses and activities organized for profit, and does not cover religious and charitable institutions.”
In denying RCAM’s petition, the SC ruled that “the term ‘employer’ as used in the Social Security Law is ‘sufficiently comprehensive enough as to include religious and charitable institutions or entities not organized for profit’ particularly as they are not included in the list of exceptions expressly stated under the same law.”
“Rather than the nature of an institution, coverage in the Social Security Law is predicated upon the existence of an employer-employee relationship,” it stressed. “The Court finds that an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner (The Salvation Army) and its ministers,” it said.
The SC also said:
“The exclusivity of engagement, and the control exerted by the petitioner over its ministers reinforce the conclusion that an employer-employee relationship exists between them.
“Along this line, it is inconsequential that the control refers to spiritual and ecclesiastical matters that extend to the minister's personal life; inasmuch as in resolving the instant case, the Court does not concern itself with the enforcement, propriety, or of the minister's compliance with such rules imposed by the petitioner.
“Neither does the Court command the petitioner whom to ordain or retain as its ministers nor dictate the extent of their authority over them, or instruct which rituals these ministers must observe to maintain their status.
“The Court merely evaluates on the basis of the petitioner's rules, the relationship between the petitioner and its ministers for the proper classification of the latter's membership status in the SSS; there is thus no impermissible intrusion into the religious sphere.
“In this case, the petitioner is dealt with not as a religious institution but as an employer of its ministers. It is in this capacity that the petitioner's obligation to register and extend the benefits under the SSS law in favor of its ministers arose.
“In closing, it bears to mention that the State, in the enforcement of the SSS law, and the Church, in the propagation and practice of its belief, are motivated by the common objective of social justice.
“The Court recognizes the petitioner's adherence to this goal with its admission of employer status and corresponding registration of its ordinary employees.
“In consideration of these, the Court resolves this appeal granting employee status to petitioner' s officers and ministers, to give force and meaning to Constitutional guarantees and by way of a shared expression of unity to this common aspiration.
“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated September 30, 2016 and Resolution dated February 21, 2017, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142049, are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.”