Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Min.no. 4671

INTRODUCED BY ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE
RAFAEL V. MARIANO

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) order being issued by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary runs counter to
instituted conventions and mandates protecting workers’ rights for freedom
of association, freedom of assembly and right to collective bargaining
agreement.

In our observance, labor disputes between workers and employers
that resulted to the intervention of various government agencies and the
imposition of the assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) order are disputes that are
related to the non-recognition of freedom to associate, assemble, and enter
into collective bargaining negotiations. The imposition of the assumption of
jurisdiction (AJ) order, therefore, gravely violates International Labor
Standards set by International Labour Organization (ILO) and the 1987
Philippine Constitution.

According to International Labour Organization (ILO}, all member
States must respect, realize and implement Freedom of Association and
Right to Collective Bargaining, other Core Conventions as defined by the
International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration of 1998, and other
ratified Conventions.

International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 87 declared
that “workers, without any distinction, have the right to form or join an
organization of their own choosing, without previous authorization, to
collectively protect and promote their economic and social interests; all
workers, regardless of their occupations, economic sectors and types of
contracts - should be able to enjoy the right to self-organization and trade
unions and their employers collectively bargain on wages and conditions of
work with an aim to conchide collective bargaining agreement.

ILO Convention No. 98 enshrines the protection of workers against
acts of anti-union discrimination from employer, protection of workers’ and
employers’ organizations against acts of interference by each other, and
promotion of collective bargaining.

Out of the one hundred eighty (180) Conventions adopted by the
International Labour Organization (ILO), the Government of the Republic of


the Philippines has ratified, so far, only thirty-seven (37) Conventions, giving
more authority to employers and even the government to ‘violate’ labor rights
in the pretext of implementing administrative and executive guidelines from
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which included the
issuance of assumption of jurisdiction {AJ} orders,

Paragraph g, Article 263 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides
that, “When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national
interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction
over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for
compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the
effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout
as specified in the assumption or certification order. When a strike has
already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer
shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the
same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the opinion of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary is the deciding
factor in the matter and this is what labor advocates and legal counsels of
worker's organizations and associations are protesting.

According to Atty. Remigio Saladero, Executive Director of the
Prolabor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE], the opinion of the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary is difficult to contest in court when
the same refers to the imposition of an assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) order
over a strike or an impending strike. This is because the main basis for the
assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) is the opinion of the labor secretary - to
contest this, one must present evidence that there was bad faith on the part
of the secretary when he/she made the decision.

Apart from this, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLF}
Secretary’s decision to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute is
immediately executory. This means that even if there is a pending Motion for
Reconsideration on his/her order, the order must be immediately
implemented. If the order is defied, there is a ground to penalize the workers.

Because of the foregoing and other powers possessed by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE} Secretary that he/she uses to
artificially settle and put an end to labor disputes, the right to strike has
become more illusory.

Moreover, after assuming jurisdiction, the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Secretary can place the dispute and the parties
involved under compulsory arbitration (CA] whenever he or she deems it to
be of “national interest” to do so.

The International Labour Organization (10) High Level Mission
conducted last September 2009 revealed that mounting complaints of
violation of the rights of workers to freedom of association can be rooted
from the imposition of assumption of jurisdiction (AJ). The following are
among these cases:


* Dismissal of workers belonging to University of San Agustin
Employees Union for not complying with the assumption of
jurisdiction (AJ) Order.

*  Militarization of Nestle Cabuyao Workers’ Picketline following an
assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) Order and deputization Order of
the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment.

* Violation of freedom of association, government's failure to
implement Conventions No.87 and 89, following an assumption
of jurisdiction (AJj Order issued on 10 April 2009 by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary against
Toyota Motors Philippines Corporation Worker's Association
{(TMPCWA) even before the union launched its strike on 23 and
29 April 2009.

The report of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Governing
Body's Committee on Freedom of Association also cited that the High Level
Mission “heard numerous stories of impediments and obstacles to the full
exercise of freedom of association” and that unions “had been effectively
blocked from exercising trade union rights for decades and any advances in
this respect were few and far between.”

The report further noted the complaints that “trade unions are rarely
respected by the employer who is reported to prefer a non-union workplace
or one where unions are generally submissive” and “when independent
unions exist, collective bargaining was said to be difficult and strike action
routinely end in the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE}
Secretary's exercise of the assumption of jurisdiction power.

‘The recommendations of the International Labour Organization's
(1LO's} Committee on Freedom of Association following the International
Labour Organization High Level Mission (ILO-HLM) further affirm the
contradiction between the assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) and the workers’
freedoms and rights. The report of the Committee released last March 2010
cited the Philippine Government's malign imposition of assumption of
jurisdiction (AJ) on the workers’ peaceful strikes. The Committee Report on
the complaint of Toyota Workers’ Union filed before the International Labour
Organization (ILO) reads as follows:

“The Committee expressed its regret that the Supreme Court appears to
consider that the staging of peaceful pickets should be sanctioned as a
violation of an assumption of jurisdiction order, itself contrary to
freedom of association principles, and as liable to lead to a worsening
of an already deteriorated situation... (p.346}

‘The report reiterated that freedom of association and peaceful and
lawful mass actions or strikes of workers “should not be subject to
interference by the authorities.”

If an assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) order is not issued, other
capitalists obtain restraining order from the regular courts. Employers can


also obtain injunction order from the National Labor Relations Commission
{NLRC) to prevent acts in relation to a strike. The National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) has jurisdiction over labor relation disputes including
those placed under compulsory arbitration (CA) by the Secretary of
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). A Labor Arbiter’s decision
can be appealed to the Commissioners of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The decision f the latter, in turn, can be appealed to the
Court of Appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court.

What this legal maze demonstrates is that despite the formal
recognition of the right to strike, de facto state policy exists to subvert this
right.

The assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) Order issued by then Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas and its
accompanying return-to-work Order, as well as her Order deputiing the
Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines
{AFP} to enforce the assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) Order are at the core of
the Hacienda Luisita Massacre that took place last November 16, 2004.
According to labor organizations and labor rights advocates, the way then
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary handled the labor
dispute in Hacienda Luisita underscores the Secretary's abuse of power and
pro-employer bias.

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary Arturo Brion
persisted in issuing assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) orders against workers
and labor unions that exercise their right to strike when he assumed office
in July 2006. The numerous assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) orders issued by
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) resulted to hundreds of
cases of human rights violations of workers exercising their legitimate right
to strike and to protest against union busting and other unfair labor
practices, During the turnover ceremonies at the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) in 2008, former Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Secretary Marianito Roque did not make any position or statement
on the issue and vowed to “carry on Department of Labor and Employment’s
programs and policies initiated by Brion and other labor officials under his
stewardship”.

Based on the 2009 annual report released by the Center for Trade
Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), 1,889 cases of rights violations occurred
from 2001 to 2009 under the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo. These violations vary from assaults on picket lines, harassments,
surveillance, union busting, prohibition of the right to strike, violation of
right to organize, manipulation and right to bargain.

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary Rosalinda
Baldoz assumed jurisdiction over the high-profile labor dispute at the
Philippine Airlines (PAL) in October 2010, over issues raised by flight crew
represented by the Flight Attendants and Stewardess’ Association of the
Philippines {FASAP} concerning the retirement age at the Philippine Airlines
(PAL) and other Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) proposals.

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued the
assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) Order to avert a possible strike by the


affected employees that are opposing the Department of Labor and
Employment's (DOLE’s) approval and upholding of the outsourcing plan

In December 2010, Malacafiang directly assumed jurisdiction over the
labor dispute between Philippine Airlines (PAL) management and its ground
employees represented by the Philippine Airlines Employees Association
{(PALEA} over the outsourcing program of the management that will displace
more or less three thousand (3,000) regular employees of the country’s
premier flag carrier. The Order effectively postponed the implementation of
the layoff and outsourcing.

‘The government's issuance of assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) orders
on these prominent labor cases sets precedent on future labor disputes.
According to Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) Labor Center, the State nearly-
perfected legal devices to prevent strikes. The Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) even boasted that strikes could rarely push through
because of assumption of jurisdiction {AJ}. The Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) has commonly used assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) to
order striking workers to return to work and workers who are inclined to
defy the order bear the risk of losing their jobs whenever the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) assumes jurisdiction.

From 2001-2009, more or less two hundred thirty (230) assumption
of jurisdiction (AJ} orders were enforced as opposed to only one hundred
ninety-one (191) strike incidents. This is only possible in a country with a
law that allows for an assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) order even before the
strike is launched which as stated earlier was criticized not only by labor
groups and advocates but also by the International Labour Organization
(LO) as a direct suppression of the right of workers to freely associate and
assemble.

With the use of assumption of jurisdiction (AJ), the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) now boasts the re-institution of ‘industrial
peace.” In the last decade, strike incidents have declined dramatically from
an average of 30 strikes per year from 2001-2005 to an average of seven (7)
strikes per year from 2006-2009. However, this declining incident of strikes
does not necessarily mean that issues and concems of workers are properly
and justly addressed, From 2007 to 2009, the Center for Trade Union and
Human Rights (CTUHR) documented one hundred two (102) cases of
violation of workers’ rights to freedom of association, thirty one (31) cases of
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) violation and three hundred twenty-
two (322) violations of economic, social, and cultural rights largely brought
about by the 2008 financial crisis. The aforesaid violations affected a total of
one hundred thirty four thousand fifty-eight (134,058) workers. Violations of
civil and political rights, on the other hand, totaled to one thousand four
hundred thirty-four (1,434) cases victimizing seven thousand four hundred
thirty-six (7,436) workers. This data is only partial count as independent
monitoring of workers rights and labor standards implementations
particularly in export processing zones are almost impossible.

The imposition of an assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) order as
experienced by many local unions on strike resulted to graver human rights
violations such as extrajudicial killings perpetrated by members of law
enforcement institutions such as the Philippine National Police (PNP)


including the Regional Special Action Forces and the Special Weapons and
Tactics (SWAT) team, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and
posteany hired goons and private guards that are tasked implement the
assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) order.

In view of the foregoing, the passage of this bill is earnestly requested


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HoUsE HEL No. _4671

INTRODUCED BY ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE,
RAFAEL V. MARIANO

AN ACT
REPEALING THE PROVISION ON ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION
UNDER PARAGRAPH G, ARTICLE 263 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREEE NO.
442, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “LABOR CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES

Be tt enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Paragraph (g), Article 263 of Presidential Decree No. 442,
as amended, otherwise known as the “Labor Code of the Philippines” is
hereby repealed.

SECTION 2. Repeating Clause - Ail laws, decrees, executive
issuances, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby
Tepealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 8. Efffectivity Clause - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.

Approved.