5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly doctrine and to subordinate the police power to the contract clause.[54] (emphasis supplied; citations omitted) Indeed, the constitutional right to inviolability of contracts is not absolute. It is subject to the proper exercise of the police power by the State. Further, the contracts referred to by petitioners are labor contracts. Under the Civil Code, labor contracts are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good.[55] Here, the Court finds that the State reasonably exercised its police power in increasing the SSS contribution under R.A. No. 11199. The new rates are not a drastic increase based on the previous rates; these are imposed gradually; and these are justifiably and rationally shouldered between the employer and the seafarer. Glaringly, petitioners failed to present any credible evidence or argument that would show that the exercise of the State's police power in increasing the SSS contributions are unreasonable and will cause irreversible and significant economic damages and liabilities to the stakeholders and the entire maritime industry. Rather, the increased rate of the SSS coverage is in line with the State's objective to establish, develop, promote and perfect a sound and viable tax-exempt social security system suitable to the needs of the people throughout the Philippines which shall promote social justice through savings, and ensure meaningful social security protection to members and their beneficiaries against the hazards of disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of income or financial burden.[56] Further, it must be emphasized that the provision of the law in equitably increasing the SSS contribution rates is within the wisdom of Congress. As long as there is no grave abuse of discretion in enacting the increased rates, the Court must respect the intent of Congress to achieve a dynamic social security service for our seafarers. In St. Joseph's College v. St. Joseph's College Workers' Association,[57] the Court held that: Amidst these opposing forces the task at hand becomes saddled with the resultant implications that the interpretation of the law would bear upon such varied interests. But this Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid down. Its duty is to say what the law is as enacted by the lawmaking body. That is not the same as saying what the law should be or what is the correct rule in a given set of circumstances. It is not the province of the judiciary to look into the wisdom of the law nor to question the policies adopted by the legislative branch. Nor is it the business of this Tribunal to remedy every unjust situation that may arise from the application of a particular law. It is for the legislature to enact remedial legislation if that would be necessary in the premises. But as always, with apt judicial caution and cold neutrality, the Court must carry out the delicate function of interpreting the law, guided by the Constitution and existing legislation and mindful of settled jurisprudence. The Court's https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 23/28