7/23/2019 CBEA vs. BSP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbea-vs-bsp 1/4

You are here: Home ∼ CASE DIGEST: Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko

Sentral ng Pilipinas

CASE DIGEST: Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng

PilipinasPublished by  Paul Nikko Degollado on January 3, 2014 | Leave a response

G No 14!20!

Puno, J"

#a$%s&

' ()*3 + o%herise knon as %he Ne -en%ral .ank '$% %ook e//e$% July 3 13,e//e$%ively repla$ing %he earlier -en%ral .ank o/ %he Philippines es%ablished 14

 by %he .angko en%ral ng Pilipinas" n June ! 2001, pe%i%ioner -en%ral .ank

no .P 56ployees 'sso$ia%ion 7n$" /iled a pe%i%ion agains% %he 58e$u%ive

e$re%ary o/ %he //i$e o/ %he Presiden% %o res%rain .P /ro6 i6ple6en%ing %he

las% proviso in e$%ion 1* i, 'r%i$le 77 o/ ' ()*3 hi$h per%ains %o

es%ablish6en% o/ a 9u6an resour$e 6anage6en% sys%e6 and a $o6pensa%ion

s%ru$%ure as par% o/ %he au%hori%y o/ %he :one%ary .oard" 56ployees hose

posi%ions /all under G 1 and belo shall be in a$$ordan$e i%h %he ra%es in %he

salary s%andardi;a%ion a$%" Pe%i%ioner $on%ends %ha% %he $lassi/i$a%ions is no%

reasonable, arbi%rary and viola%es %he e<ual pro%e$%ion $lause" =he said proviso

has been pre>udi$ial %o so6e 24 rank? and +/ile .P e6ployees" esponden%

on %he o%her hand $on%ends %ha% %he provision does no% viola%e %he e<ual

pro%e$%ion $lause, provided %ha% i% is $ons%rued %oge%her i%h o%her provisions o/

%he sa6e la su$h as %he @/is$al and ad6inis%ra%ive au%ono6yA o/ %he .angko

en%ral and %he 6anda%e o/ i%s 6one%ary board" =he oli$i%or General, as $ounsel

o/ %he 58e$u%ive e$re%ary de/ends %he provision, %ha% %he $lassi/i$a%ion o/

e6ployees is based on real and a$%ual di//eren%ia%ion and i% adheres %o %he poli$yo/ ' ()*3 %o @es%ablish pro/essionalis6 and e8$ellen$e i%hin %he .P sub>e$% %o

prevailing las and poli$ies o/ %he govern6en%"A

7ssue& Bhe%her or no% %he $on%ended proviso i/ ' ()*3 viola%es %he e<ual

pro%e$%ion o/ las, hen$e un$ons%i%u%ional"

7/23/2019 CBEA vs. BSP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbea-vs-bsp 2/4

9eld& Ces %he proviso is un$ons%i%u%ional as i% opera%e on %he salary grade or %he

o//i$er e6ployee s%a%us, i% dis%inguishes be%een e$ono6i$ $lass and s%a%us i%h

%he higher salary grade re$ipien%s are o/ grea%er bene/i% above %he la %han %hose

o/ 6anda%ed by %he alary %andardi;a%ion '$%" //i$ers o/ %he .P re$eive higher

 ages %ha% %hose o/ rank?and?/ile e6ployees be$ause %he /or6er are no% $overed

 by %he salary s%andardi;a%ion a$% as provided by %he proviso"

? ee 6ore a%& h%%p&polni8"$o6EpF!)s%hash"JPa'0ay"dpu/ 

7/23/2019 CBEA vs. BSP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbea-vs-bsp 3/4

Central Bank

 Employees Association vs BSPGR 148208 15 Decemer 2004

11  !e"nes"ay   #ar 2015

POSTED BY R ACHEL CHAN  IN CASE DIGESTS , CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

≈ LEAVE A COMMENT 

Facts: The New Central Bank Act abolished the old Central Bank and created the

new BSP on 1993 through RA No 763! Central Bank "#$lo%ees Association assailed

the $ro&ision o' RA No 763( Art )) Sec 1*c+! The% contend that it #akes an

unconstitutional cut between two classes o' e#$lo%ees in the BSP( &i,- *1+ the BSP

o''icers as e.e#$t class o' Salar% Standardi,ation /aw *RA 670+ and *+ the rank2

and2'ile non2e.e#$t class! BSP contends that the e.e#$tion o' o''icers *S 4 and

abo&e+ 'ro# the SS/ was intended to address the BSP5s lack o' co#$etiti&eness in

ter#s o' attracting co#$etent o''icers and e.ecuti&es! )t was not intended to

discri#inate against the rank2and2'ile!

Issue: hether or not Section 1*c+ &iolates eual $rotection right o' the BSP r8'

e#$lo%ees

Decision: Sec 1*c+ unconstitutional! :udicial notice that other o&t ;inancial

)nstitution undertook a#end#ent o' their charters 'ro# 199 to 44< = a blanket

$ro&ision 'or all e#$lo%ees to be co&ered b% SS/! The said subseuent enact#ents

constitute signi'icant changes in circu#stance that considerabl% alter the

reasonabilit% o' the continued o$eration o' the last $ro&iso o' Section 1*c+! /egal

histor% shows that ;)s ha&e long been recogni,ed as co#$rising one distinct class(

se$arate 'ro# other go&ern#ental entities! There is no substantial distinctions so as

to di''erentiate( the BSP rank2and2'ile 'ro# the other rank2and2'ile o' the se&en ;)s!

The eual $rotection clause does not de#and absolute eualit% but it reuires that all

7/23/2019 CBEA vs. BSP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbea-vs-bsp 4/4

$ersons shall be treated alike( under like circu#stances and conditions both as to

$ri&ileges con'erred and liabilities en'orced! Those that 'all within a class should be

treated in the sa#e 'ashion> whate&er restrictions cast on so#e in the grou$ is

euall% binding on the rest! )t is clear that the enact#ent o' the se&en subseuent

charters has rendered the continued a$$lication o' the challenged $ro&iso anathe#a

to the eual $rotection o' the law( and the sa#e should be declared as an outlaw!