Dapat na ba akong tumigil sa paghuhulog sa SSS pag ako ay naka 120 months contribution na?

View Comments

• Nais ko lang malaman paano kung nagresign na ang isang employee at buntis, paano niya mapapalitan ng self employed ang status niya para maituloy ang paghuhulog?

• Hi, po tanong ko lang po,
  Nasa 120plus na po ang him on ng tatay ko, at 65yes old napo.
  Ang tnong po, kaylan po dapat o anong month p.o. Dapat magfile ng sss retired/mention nea salamat.

  • Useless to write, no one is replying, least of all the SSS people.

    Anyway, just in case some SSS people happen to come by - here, please read this text below.

    https://financialducksinarow.com/11605/the-remarriage-rule-possibly-the-dumbest-social-security-rule/#comment-11604
    The Remarriage Rule (Possibly the Dumbest US Social Security Rule)
    May 15th, 2017 by jblankenship.
    [ Comments are presented first, full article follows below. ]
    1. osolev
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 15, 2018 at 11:36 am
    In the Philippines, the rule of a person getting the social security pension of his or her deceased spouse and remarriage is quite simple, namely:
    No remarriage and no even living in with another person like in a marriage, period.
    So, in the Philippines the social security is simple but dumb also because it smacks of imposing celibate life on widows or widowers, by punishing them for getting married again or even just living in with a new partner without marriage.
    You ask the Social Security officials why that is so, they will simply tell you and insist that it is the law, period (or stupid!).
    So, what are you supposed to do with your human need for love and companionship for the remainder years of your life, after the death of your spouse who had retirement pension from social security?
    Simple, engage in casual promiscuous sex, stupid!
    Reply
    2. Laura Digan
    May 17, 2017 at 2:54 pm
    This rule is covers those who have lost a spouse or an ex-spouse that has not remarried. Many widows due to loss of a spouse can find themselves inadequately prepared for funding in retirement. Opting to get the benefit does put a limit on annual income. This limit on earning income while receiving benefits doesn’t help the higher tax bracket widows but rather may be successful in really benefitting those widows who may be in need as a result of loss of a working spouse over past years.
    Reply
    1. jblankenship
    May 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm
    On the contrary: this rule specifically eliminates benefits for a widow(er) who has chosen to remarry before the arbitrary age of 60.
    Remarriage after age 60? No remarriage at all? This rule doesn’t apply to either situation.
    Reply
    3. Master Duke
    May 15, 2017 at 12:13 pm
    Totally agree with you. The fact people quietly divorce and remarry shows that it doesn’t make sense even more lol.
    Reply
    4. Lynne
    May 15, 2017 at 10:58 am
    As a single person who will never benefit in any way from all the claiming strategies benefiting married couples, I would rather see everyone getting social security on their own record. Much simpler, and more fair.
    Reply
    5. etozier24
    May 15, 2017 at 9:01 am
    I agree with you, I think it’s kind of silly. What’s the difference of a year? Why are we making people in their 50’s make tough decisions around their personal life? Does it really matter if someone gets re-married in their 50s? I don’t know, just throwing out some ideas.
    Thanks for sharing :)
    Reply

    [ Full Article ]
    If you’re familiar with the remarriage rule for Social Security survivor benefits, you likely know what I’m talking about. This is, in my opinion, quite possibly the dumbest rule that we have in the whole Social Security system. There are several really dumb rules, but this one takes the cake.
    Briefly, here’s the remarriage rule: If you are a widow or widower who is otherwise eligible for survivor’s benefits from your late spouse, you must be unmarried as of reaching age 60 to actually receive the benefit. If you remarried even one day before reaching age 60 (and remain married) you are not eligible for survivor benefits. If you remarried the day after your 60th birthday, you’re still eligible to receive the survivor benefits based on your late spouse’s record.
    Example of remarriage rule
    Joan and Richard were married for 27 years when Richard died. Joan was 57 years old at the time of Richard’s passing. Upon reaching age 60, Joan will be eligible to receive a survivor’s benefit based on Richard’s record.
    Joan met David when she was 59 years old, and the two plan to marry soon. The timing of this marriage is critical to Joan, as explained above. If Joan remarries before she reaches age 60, she loses her eligibility to receive the survivor’s benefit while she’s married to David. If she waits until some time after her 60th birthday, Joan will retain eligibility for the survivor benefit.
    Likewise, if Joan’s (early) marriage to David ends, either through divorce or David’s death, Joan’s eligibility for the survivor benefit based on Richard’s record will be restored. In fact, if David has died, as long as he and Joan were married for at least 1 year (and still currently married upon David’s passing), Joan will be eligible for survivor benefits on either Richard’s or David’s record, whichever is more advantageous to her.
    What does this rule protect?
    What exactly are we trying to resolve with this rule? I can’t for the life of me figure that one out – except that apparently we want to provide disincentive for widow(er)s to remarry prior to age 60. If anyone in readerland has other ideas for the value of this rule, I’d love to hear them!
    I doubt seriously if this particular rule results in much benefit to the bottom line for Social Security as a system. But what it does is to cause much confusion for individuals who could be affected by it. I’ve heard from more than one individual who made changes to their remarriage plans because of the rule.
    Plus, I’ve also heard from multiple individuals who were planning a quiet divorce in order to get around the rule. This could be done, restoring eligibility, and then after at least 12 months has passed the two could be remarried again (as long as the widow(er) is over age 60).
    In a system that’s fraught with much confusion and complexity, it’s my opinion that this is a rule we could definitely do without, and no one would be harmed for the lack of it. What do you think?
    6 Comments [ See above. ]

• What about the case that two old SSS pensioners who are a widow and a widower, and their respective deceased spouses were also SSS pensioners, AND they are receiving to date the pension of their respective deceased SSS spouses pensioners...

  Question: Will they lose the pension of their respective deceased SSS spouses-pensioners, when they remarry each other, although they continue to receive each one his/her respective pension - because each one is an SSS pensioner in his/her own right?

  Dear PAO,
  My wife died last July, and I intend to claim her death benefits with the SSS. This is despite the fact that, as early as 2006, we have already been separated and I am already cohabiting with another woman with whom I have a child. My wife and I have two children together, and my salary is not enough to support them. Can I claim my wife’s death benefits despite us being separated when she died?
  Sincerely yours,
  Desmond
  Dear Desmond,
  When a Social Security System (SSS) member who has paid at least thirty-six (36) monthly contributions dies, his/her primary beneficiaries are entitled to receive a monthly pension. This is pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 8282, or the Social Security Law of 1997, which provides:
  “SEC. 13. Death Benefits. – Upon the death of a member who has paid at least thirty-six (36) monthly contributions prior to the semester of death, his primary beneficiaries shall be entitled to the monthly pension: Provided, That if he has no primary beneficiaries, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to thirty-six (36) times the monthly pension. If he has not paid the required thirty-six (36) monthly contributions, his primary or secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to the monthly pension times the number of monthly contributions paid to the SSS or twelve (12) times the monthly pension, whichever is higher.”
  In addition to this, Section 8 of the same law enumerates who the primary beneficiaries of a member are. In this provision, it states that the primary beneficiaries of a member are the dependent spouse, until s/he remarries, the legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted and illegitimate children:

  “Section 8. Terms Defined.- For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings:
  ******
  “(k) Beneficiaries – The dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted and illegitimate children, who shall be the primary beneficiaries of the member: Provided, That the dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to fifty percent (50 percent) of the share of the legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted children: Provided, further, That in the absence of the dependent legitimate, legitimated children of the member, his/her dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100 percent) of the benefits. In their absence, the dependent parents who shall be the secondary beneficiaries of the member. In the absence of all the foregoing, any other person designated by the member as his/her secondary beneficiary.”
  Despite this, being legally married to a member is not enough to be considered as a primary beneficiary. This has been held by the Supreme Court in Social Security System vs. Aguas (G.R. No. 165546, February 27, 2006; ponente, former Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr.):
  “On the claims of Rosanna, it bears stressing that for her to qualify as a primary beneficiary; she must prove that she was the legitimate spouse dependent for support from the employee. The claimant-spouse must therefore establish two qualifying factors: (1) that she is the legitimate spouse, and (2) that she is dependent upon the member for support.
  ******
  The obvious conclusion then is that a wife who is already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be dependent for support upon the husband, absent any showing to the contrary. Conversely, if it is proved that the husband and wife were still living together at the time of his death, it would be safe to presume that she was dependent on the husband for support, unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself.” (Emphasis supplied)
  Considering that you have long been separated from your wife, you cannot be considered as her primary beneficiary. Thus, you cannot claim your wife’s death benefits from the SSS.
  Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.
  We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
  Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.

• I already inquire about my SSS, but when will I received the reply

• Ano pang ibang supporting documents para maclaim naming magkapatid death benefits ni Mother since namatay na lahat ang kapatid nya at hindi nabago ang record as single status to married. One of the siblings live and died in Mindanao?

• Mayroon po bang cash surrender value na makukuha sa SSS? Nagstop na kasi ang contribution ko sa SSS since nagtransfer na ako ng employment from private to government. If meron, kailan kailangan ifile? Thank you.

• Iam 60 years old on Aug. 23, 1958, my question is puwede na po ba akong magfile ng pension ?

  Pls advise.

  Yours sincerely,
  Saturnino M. Tomas

• Kelan po uli ang condination

• PWed po bang mag file ng faternity leave dahil po nakunan po kase asawa ko kalalabas lang kahapon

• Buntis po ang ate ko ngaun pngatlo na po,pg po ba sya nag maternity loan mkakakauwi pdn b sya sa 2niang anak...d po kc xa nkapg maternity nung nanganak xa sa una pati sa pangalawa