Pronouncement of synopsis of UN Appeals Tribunal Judgments
Quote: “We accordingly uphold the appeal, set aside the decision of the Standing Committee and order the Fund to pay Ms. Clemente a widow’s benefit with effect from 29 June 2016 together with other consequential brief.”
Case 20181206: Clemente against the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board
(View video from approx. minutes 50-55, or read
transcript below).
Unofficial transcript:
Ms. Clemente appeals against a decision of the Standing
Committee of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board refusing to pay her a
widow’s benefit in terms of article 34 of the Fund’s Regulations.
Article 34
provides that a widow’s benefit will be payable to the surviving spouse of a
participant who is entitled to a retirement
benefit at the time of his death if she was married to the deceased at the date
of separation of service and remained married to him until his death.
Ms. Clemente married her deceased husband in the Philippines in March 1995 and remained in a relationship with him for twenty-one years until his death on the 29th of June 2016, a mere seven months after he had retired from service on the 30th of November 2015. Mr. Clemente listed Ms. Clemente as his spouse throughout his participation in the Fund, from October 1999 until his retirement. However,Mr. Clemente was previously married in the Philippines to Ms. Madeline Agbyane. He married her in 1978, but this marriage was not annulled by a court in the Philippines until the 21st of August 1996, about a year after his marriage to Ms. Clemente. Divorce is not legal in the Philippines. The only manner in which a marriage can end other than through the death of a spouse is by annulment. The causes for annulment are of a restricted nature, for example, fraud or one of the parties not being of sound mind.
The Fund informed Ms. Clemente that on its understanding of Philippine law, her marriage to Mr. Clemente was bigamous and thus null and void because it predated the annulment of Mr. Clemente’s first marriage. Accordingly, it rejected her request for a widow’s benefit under Article 34.
In accordance with the general principles of private international law, the validity of a marriage is usually assessed and determined in accordance with the lege loco celebrationem, law of the place of celebration, being in this case the law of the Philippines. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled on various occasions that although a second marriage celebrated while a first marriage was still subsisting might be presumed to be void ab initio, it would be presumptively valid until declared a nullity by a court. The reasoning of the Supreme Court of the Philippines reflects pragmatism in assessing the consequences of illegality. In most municipal legal systems, illegal juridical acts are often deemed to exist until they are set aside by a court in appropriate proceedings because they have legal consequences that cannot be simply overlooked. A marriage may be hypothetically a nullity but remains effective and is in reality valid until a judicial declaration to the contrary. The evidence does not disclose that Ms. Clemente’s marriage has been the subject of any legal proceedings for a declaration of nullity in the Philippines. The marriage is recognized by the competent authorities of the Philippines. Her presumptively valid marriage was extant at the date Mr. Clemente separated from service and she remained so married to him until his death.
In the premises, Ms. Clemente is entitled to payment of a widow’s benefit in terms of article 34 of the Regulations. Ms. Clemente’s request for costs of the appeal cannot be sustained. Article 9, Subarticle 2 of the UNAT statute permits the Appeals Tribunal to award costs only if a party has manifestly abused the appeals process. The decision of the Standing Committee was reached in good faith and in the interest of the other participants of the Fund. It stands as by no means an abuse of the process. We accordingly uphold the appeal, set aside the decision of the Standing Committee and order the Fund to pay Ms. Clemente a widow’s benefit with effect from 29 June 2016 together with other consequential brief.
Ms. Clemente married her deceased husband in the Philippines in March 1995 and remained in a relationship with him for twenty-one years until his death on the 29th of June 2016, a mere seven months after he had retired from service on the 30th of November 2015. Mr. Clemente listed Ms. Clemente as his spouse throughout his participation in the Fund, from October 1999 until his retirement. However,Mr. Clemente was previously married in the Philippines to Ms. Madeline Agbyane. He married her in 1978, but this marriage was not annulled by a court in the Philippines until the 21st of August 1996, about a year after his marriage to Ms. Clemente. Divorce is not legal in the Philippines. The only manner in which a marriage can end other than through the death of a spouse is by annulment. The causes for annulment are of a restricted nature, for example, fraud or one of the parties not being of sound mind.
The Fund informed Ms. Clemente that on its understanding of Philippine law, her marriage to Mr. Clemente was bigamous and thus null and void because it predated the annulment of Mr. Clemente’s first marriage. Accordingly, it rejected her request for a widow’s benefit under Article 34.
In accordance with the general principles of private international law, the validity of a marriage is usually assessed and determined in accordance with the lege loco celebrationem, law of the place of celebration, being in this case the law of the Philippines. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled on various occasions that although a second marriage celebrated while a first marriage was still subsisting might be presumed to be void ab initio, it would be presumptively valid until declared a nullity by a court. The reasoning of the Supreme Court of the Philippines reflects pragmatism in assessing the consequences of illegality. In most municipal legal systems, illegal juridical acts are often deemed to exist until they are set aside by a court in appropriate proceedings because they have legal consequences that cannot be simply overlooked. A marriage may be hypothetically a nullity but remains effective and is in reality valid until a judicial declaration to the contrary. The evidence does not disclose that Ms. Clemente’s marriage has been the subject of any legal proceedings for a declaration of nullity in the Philippines. The marriage is recognized by the competent authorities of the Philippines. Her presumptively valid marriage was extant at the date Mr. Clemente separated from service and she remained so married to him until his death.
In the premises, Ms. Clemente is entitled to payment of a widow’s benefit in terms of article 34 of the Regulations. Ms. Clemente’s request for costs of the appeal cannot be sustained. Article 9, Subarticle 2 of the UNAT statute permits the Appeals Tribunal to award costs only if a party has manifestly abused the appeals process. The decision of the Standing Committee was reached in good faith and in the interest of the other participants of the Fund. It stands as by no means an abuse of the process. We accordingly uphold the appeal, set aside the decision of the Standing Committee and order the Fund to pay Ms. Clemente a widow’s benefit with effect from 29 June 2016 together with other consequential brief.
No comments:
Post a Comment