Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2 8 AUG 013 Hi
Quezon City e
(tie Gee

‘SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

2605

House Bill No.

Introduced Representatives EMMI A. DE JESUS and LUZVIMINDA C. ILAGAN
Representatives NERI COLMENARES, CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE,
FERNANDO HICAP, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON and ANTONIO TINIO

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Recognition of the fundamental equality of women and men is further reiterated by RA
9710 or the Magna Carta of Women, which affirms the State’s obligation to “pursue equal
‘opportunities for women and men and ensure equal access to resources and to
development results and outcome. RA 9710 recognizes that the abolition of the unequal
structures and practices that perpetuate discrimination and inequality is a precondition to
the realization of equality of men and women. Also, the Labor Code also prohibits
discrimination against women in the areas of labor benefits and employment.

Employment and hiring practices however, continue to be discriminatory of gender, age or
disability. Women continue to be treated as objects instead of contributors to economy and
active participants in nation-building. Hiring notices focus on physical attributes of the
potential employee (height, “pleasing personality”) instead of her/his capacities and
experience in a particular field of endeavor.

The airline industry is particularly tarnished in its discriminatory practices against its women
employees, specifically against female flight attendants. In August 2010, the Flight
Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the Philippines (FASAP) raised its concern over the
age and gender discrimination practice by Philippine Airlines (PAL) against its employees
Company policy pegs the retirement age for female flight attendants hired before 1996 at
55 years old while their male counterparts may work until 60 years old. Employees hired
after 1996, regardless of sex, are forced to retire at the age of 45, while those hired are
2000 are forced to retire at 40 years old.

\
}


This practice belies the avowed functions of flight attendants as safety personnel. With this
policy, airline companies have been shown to market the “youthful looks” of their flight
attendants, instead of their capacity to serve and assist as safety personnel. Training, skills
and mastery of aircraft safety and precautions of senior crews should never be relegated as
a secondary qualification over “youthful looks”.

More importantly, this policy of airline companies gravely violates its employees’ security of
tenure. The State, by allowing this practice can be considered negligently criminally
complicit in allowing the airline companies to run afoul with the Constitutional guarantee of
security of tenure, thereby allowing the airline companies to abandon their employees in
their productive years and way before worldwide accepted retirement age of 65.

These airline employees who have with them experience in safety and air travel should not
be denied of their productive and gainful employment before reaching the legitimate age of
retirement. It is beneficial not only to these employees but to airline passengers who are
and should be primarily concerned with safety of travel.

In December 2010, in the case of the Flight Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the
Philippines (FASAP), the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) upheld the rights of
the flight attendants and stewards. DOLE made it clear that the compulsory age of
retirement is 65 years old, consistent with Article 287 of the Labor Code as amended by the
Republic Act No. 8558:
“In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of
employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or
more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory
retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire
and shail be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for
every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole
year”

DOLE reaffirmed its earlier decision by stating that PAL failed to justify its policies in
prescribing an early retirement age in April 2011.

There is, however, another provision of the Labor Code with regards retirement age, which
opens room for the arbitrary interpretation by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
inconsistent with the intent of the supreme law of the land. Article 132 of the Labor Code
allows the DOLE Secretary to “determine minimum age and standards for retirement or
termination in special occupations such as those of flight attendants and the like.”


This is clearly inconsistent with the other provisions of the said article. With this bill, we aim
to set the policy clear that the State protects its employees’ right to security of tenure as we
also positively act on the affected employees’ plea not to leave their fate in the
interpretation of the conflicting provisions of the Labor Code and ultimately protect women
workers from possible discrimination using the said provision of the law.

Kee HO

REP, EMMI A, DE JESUS
Gabriela Women’s Party

Seguin a
REP.LOZVIMIINDA C. ILAGAN

Gabriela Women’s Party

EP) NERI mann S

NN in Muna Partyli
2
REP.FERNANDO HICAP Rl INTZARATE
Anakpawis Partylist Bayan Muna#artylist
p LZ
Dn ae
RY RIDON <—_-REP, ANTONIO TINI

ACT Teachers Partylist

ibataan Partylist


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

2605

House Bill No..

Introduced Representatives EMMI A. DE JESUS and LUZVIMINDA C, LAGAN
Representatives NERI COLMENARES, CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE,
FERNANDO HICAP, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON and ANTONIO TINIO

AN ACT REPEALING LETTER D OF ARTICLE 132 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER FOUR
HUNDRED FORTY-TWO (PD 442), OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LABOR CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES:

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress
assembled:

Section 1. Article 132, letter d of Presidential Decree No. 442 otherwise known as the
Labor Code of the Philippines is repealed to read as follows:

XXX

1d) Fe- determi Jate-minl d-otherstandards forreth
terminations Jat. i 4, 36 those-of fight attendants and-theliker

SEC. 2. Repealing Clause. All laws, executive orders, presidential decrees, presidential
proclamations, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 3. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.

Approved,