Supreme Court annuls two resolutions of Social Security Council
Tribunal feels nobody is obliged to do the impossible
Federico Méndez
SANTO DOMINGO. The Supreme Court of Justice declared lacking all judicial efficiency the resolutions 165-03 and 164-08 by the National Social Security Council, because they are contrary to Law 87-01 which covers the Dominican Social Security System.
The decision was taken by the Third Chamber for Labor, Administrative and Tax Disputes of the high court. The `16502 from 39 August 2007 authorized the IDSS to continue providing health services to those mobile or occasional workers of the payroll deduction regime (from construction, farming or stevedoring) that are not under another ARS.
The 164-08 resolution, from 23 August 2007, appoints a technical commission composed of the Treasurer of the Social Security system and technicians from the IDSS to present the proposal of the mechanism to collect the payments from the affikliates.
The court considered that a general legal principle is when a law approved by the National Congress and enacted by the Executive Power, such as Law 87-01 on the SDSS, it prevails over any decree or resolution that is to the contrary.
The court is of the criteria that is this sort of action, the resolutions violate the legal dispositions, "so that these should be declared illicit and lacking all judicial value, since a citizen could not be obliged to comply with a legal obligation when its execution is subordinated to the competent authorities adopting the measures and the collections required in order to make possible the observation and compliance."
The court feels that if the employer cannot fulfill the obligations for affiliation and payment to the SDSS, it is because its authorities did not create the mechanisms and structures that are indispensible for carrying out these obligations.
Likewise, That just as the sentence that was challenged says, the Law 87-01 forces all employers to register and enroll his personnel, no matter what the nature of the mode of the work contract, reason for which, the lack of registration or enrollment, as well and the not-payment of the corresponding deductions implicate his civil responsibility.
Fulfillment of the law
The decision was taken by judges Manuel Herrera Carbuccia, who presides over the Third Chamber; Sara Henriquez Marin, and Francisco Ortega Polanco.
They suggest that in the case on which the ruled, the "concerned employer" has not been able to comply with the obligation imposed by the law because the competent authorities of the system have ordered that the employers of mobile (temporary) workers or occasional workers in the areas of construction, dockworking and farming continue enrolling them and paying the IDSS.
The decision was taken by the Third Chamber for Labor, Administrative and Tax Disputes of the high court. The `16502 from 39 August 2007 authorized the IDSS to continue providing health services to those mobile or occasional workers of the payroll deduction regime (from construction, farming or stevedoring) that are not under another ARS.
The 164-08 resolution, from 23 August 2007, appoints a technical commission composed of the Treasurer of the Social Security system and technicians from the IDSS to present the proposal of the mechanism to collect the payments from the affikliates.
The court considered that a general legal principle is when a law approved by the National Congress and enacted by the Executive Power, such as Law 87-01 on the SDSS, it prevails over any decree or resolution that is to the contrary.
The court is of the criteria that is this sort of action, the resolutions violate the legal dispositions, "so that these should be declared illicit and lacking all judicial value, since a citizen could not be obliged to comply with a legal obligation when its execution is subordinated to the competent authorities adopting the measures and the collections required in order to make possible the observation and compliance."
The court feels that if the employer cannot fulfill the obligations for affiliation and payment to the SDSS, it is because its authorities did not create the mechanisms and structures that are indispensible for carrying out these obligations.
Likewise, That just as the sentence that was challenged says, the Law 87-01 forces all employers to register and enroll his personnel, no matter what the nature of the mode of the work contract, reason for which, the lack of registration or enrollment, as well and the not-payment of the corresponding deductions implicate his civil responsibility.
Fulfillment of the law
The decision was taken by judges Manuel Herrera Carbuccia, who presides over the Third Chamber; Sara Henriquez Marin, and Francisco Ortega Polanco.
They suggest that in the case on which the ruled, the "concerned employer" has not been able to comply with the obligation imposed by the law because the competent authorities of the system have ordered that the employers of mobile (temporary) workers or occasional workers in the areas of construction, dockworking and farming continue enrolling them and paying the IDSS.
Federico Méndez
Continuar con Google