Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS.

First Regular Session

House Sill No. ase 3

latroduced by
Anakpawis Representatives Crispin B, Seltran, Rafael V. Mariano;
Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro A. Casiito, Gabriela Women’s Party Rep. Liza Largoze-Maza;
Bayan Muna Representatives Satur C, Ocampo and Joel G. Virador

EXPLANATORY NOTE

When former President Ferdinand £. Marcos declared martial Law in 1972, he also immediately
released General Order No. 5 which imposed a total’ ban on all strikes and all forms of public
assemblies. Many international human rights organizations and civil rights groups protested against the
General Order, ang to deflect some of the criticism, Marcos amended the Labor Code and declared
Presidential Decree 823 (which soon after was renumbered PO 849) wherein strike bans were limited
to vital industries,

When Marcos faked the lifting of Martial Law in. 1981, the Batasang Pambansa passed Batas Pambansa
45 and 227, which changed the provisions on strike in the Labor Code. The words “vital industries” in

the Labor code was altered to “industries indispensable to the national interest.”

When the Herrera Law was approved in 1989, the Labor Cade was ance more amended, and Article 263
(g) was added, as a provision that cavers disputes in hospitals and clinics, but the anti-sérike character
of the said provisions was not removed and such provisions were unconstitutional,

in current practice, it is the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) secretary who has the
Power to issue assumption of jurisdiction (AJ) orders, or assume jurisdiction over labor disputes.
When the labor secretary issues an AJ order, the labor dispute by law is supposed to be settled, and
the strike ended, This regardless of whether the strike has not even been launched. tn the instance

that the strike has already been launched, workers age supposed to stop the strike and return back to
work. ~

As for the settiement of the labor dispute and the resolution: of the complaints ot the workers,
everything is left to the secretary's discretion afd hinges on her opinion, According to Art, 263 (g) of
the Labor Code, if it is the view or opinion of the secretary of labor that labor dispute {a question is
happening in an industry that is indispensable to the national interest , he ar she cai release an Al

order to prevent a strike or stop it if it has already been taunched. It is the opinion of the secretary
that is the deciding factor in the matter.

The last is precisely what labor advocates and the legal counsels of worker's organizations. and
associations are protesting against.

According to Atty. Remigio Saladero, executive director of the Prolabor Legal Assistance Center
{PLACE}, the opinion of the labor secretary {5 difficult to contest in court when ‘the decision is
regarding the imposition of an AJ order over a strike or a strike in the making, The math basis for the


AJ is the opinion of the labor secretary ~ to contest this, ane must provide evidence that there was
bad faith on the part of the secretary when he/she made the decision.

Apart. from this, the DOLE secretary’s decision to assume jurisdiction over a laber dispute is
immediately executory.. This means that even if there is a pending Motion Reconsideration to his/her
order, the order must be immediately obeyed nonetheless. If the order is defied, there is a ground to
penalize workers.

Because of this and other powers incumbent upon the secretary that he/she uses to artiticially settle
and put an end to labor disputes, the right to strike has become more iltusory.

Some 1.2 million government employees are legally denied the right to bargain collectively and: to
strike in accordance with Executive Order No. 180, Series of 1987 and Memorandum Circular No.06 of
the Civil Service Commision. Even the iLO’s Committee of Experts deems this to be in contravention
of Convention 98 which has been ratified by the government of the Philippines.

In the private sector, RA 6715 grants the right to strike only to a “legitimate” union whict is the “sale
and exclusive bargaining agent” in an establishment. CBA violations are ma tonger strikeable except in
extreme cases. But even then, it’s the DOLE which has the right to determine what constitute “gross
violations” of the CBA.

Moreover, after imposing an AJ, the Secretary of Labor can place the dispute and the parties involved
under compulsory arbitration (CA) whenever he or she deems it to be in the “national interest”todo
50,

The {LO's Committee of Experts las criticized this provision for being “non-limitative” and extending
to non-essential services in practice. For instance, out of 26 labor disputes placed unde" compulsory
arbitration from January 2001 to June 2002, only.10 involved essential services of utilities. The rest
involved companies in non-vital industries such-as car manufacturing, electronics and hotels - - mostly
multinational companies (MNC’s) or affiliates.

If an AJ is not imposed, other capitalists obtain restraining orders from the regular courts. Bosses can
also obtain injunction orders from the NLRC to stop specific acts in relation to strike action. The NERC
has jurisdiction over labor relation disputes including those placed under compulsory arbitration by the
President of the Labor Sectary. An NLRC labor arbiter’s decision can be appealed and referred to the
Commisioners of the NLRC. Their decision, in turn, can be-appeated and referred 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 <o strike, de
facto state policy is to subvert this right,

A glaring case is the AJ order and its accornpanying rétfirn-ta-work order tabor secretary Patricia Sto.
Tomas fssued, as well as her order deputizing the Phitippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are at the core of the massacre that. took place last November 16,
2004. According to labor organizations and labor rights advocates, the way she handled the labor
dispute tn Hacienda Lufsita underscores Sto. Tomas’ abuse of pawer and pro-employer bias

The DOLE has issued numerous AJs that have resulted to hundreds of cases of human rights violations
of thousands of workers exercising the legitimate rights to strike and protests against union busting
and other unfair labor practices. In the last four years beginning January 20, 2001, the Center for
Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR) has documented 86 assaults on picketlines and worker
protests involving the PNP {including the Regional Special Action Forces and the SWAT}, the AFP, and
company-hired goons and private guards.


Among such cases wherein the AJ imposed and the results have been disastrous for workers are the
following:

> The repeated dispersal of the strike of workers of Yokohama Tires Philippines at the Clark Economic
Zone involving 300 combined forces of the PNP RSAF, regional PNP-and company guards armed with
§M6 rifles during the whole month of March 2001. The assaulting forces, on the strength of the AJ,
burned the picket line, stole the strikers’ personal belongings, and left 63 workers physically hurt and
wounded. Ail union officials were slapped with criminal charges. ‘The workers launched the strike
against mass dismissal even as they demanded union recognition. Not a single meimber of the
attacking forces was held accountable and prosecuted.

> On April 2001, the picketlines of striking workers of Toyota Motors Philippines in Bicutan, Paranaque
and Sta. Rosa, Laguna were attacked by the PNP and hired company goons after Sec, Sto. Tomas
assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, Sto. Tomas justified the AJ by saying that the strixe at Toyota
gives a negative signal to investors, Japanese, particularly. The order was silent on what to do with
the complaints and demands ot the warkers. ‘The newly-formed union, the Toyota Mators Phitippines
Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) was protesting the dismissal of its 220 officers and members in
the comany’s mave ta bust the nian,

> On December 2, 2001, a composite force of 700 Regional Special Action Forces (RSAF), the PNP
Regional Mobile Group, private guards and goons armed with high-caliber rifles and steel pipes hosed
down and beat 70 striking workers af Nissan Motors Philippines in Sta. Rosa, Laguna while they were

eating breakfast in-the picketline, The RSAF, etc.were enforcing an AJ order. Sixty (60) workers were
injured.

> Fifteen protesting workers of Lecon Integrated Products - a company praducing $M Bonus Products ~
were violently dispersed by 14 PNP/SWAT armed with shotguns and .45 caliber from Paranaque Police
Station on January 12, 2002, The dispersal resulted in the miscarriage of a five-month pregnant wife

of a union leader. Another nine-month pregnant wife of another union official gave birth toa stillborn
baby.

» The dispersal of strikers of Nestle Philippines in Cabuyao, Laguna on June 2 and 2:, 2003 is yet
another case. A composite of PNP Cabuyao led by Chief Supt. Eriberto Paglinawan, 100 RSAF force put
up camp inside the plant and more than 300 company guards dispersed the 400 workers aad supporters
holding a forum in front of the factory gates. The assaulting forces used water cannons and clubs
against the strikers. Mr. Vicente Batayon, Nestle workers union Board of Directors member was
nabbed, detained and mauted inside the plant. He was taken ta the hospital after his right clavicle
snapped. . Seventeen others were severely injured, A more violent dispersal followed on June 23,
were 24 workers were seriousty hurt,

> aN

There are many other cases of strike dispersals that took place upon the strength of tie DOLE’s AJ
order.

tn Light of all this, and many other competling reasons, roval of this bill is urgently sought.
s fep. Rafael Widefflano Ref. Teodoro A. Casio

Anakpawis Bayan Muna =

Rep liza Largoza-Ma:
Gabriela Women's Party

Bayan Mun:



Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS:

First Regular Session

House Bill No._3139 3,

Introduced by
Anakpawls Representatives Crispin B. Beltran, Rafael V. Mariano, Bayan Muna Representative Teodaro A.
Casifio, Gabriela Women’s Party Rep, Liza Largoze-Maza;
Bayan Muna Representatives Satur C, Ocampo and Joel G. Virador

AN ACT
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 OR THE PHILIPPINE LABOR CODE BY REPEALING
ARTICLE 263 (&)

Section 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, Article 263 (g) of Presidential Decree
No. 442 of the Philippine Labor Code as amended which states:

“when , in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely ta cause a strike or tockout ia an
industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor may assume jurisdiction of the
dispute and decide it or certify the same ta the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
assumption or certification shalt have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending
strike or lock out as specitied in the assumption or certification shall have the effect automatically
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lock out as specified in the assumption or certification
order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or'certification, atl 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. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of taw
enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders he may
issue to enforce the same.

In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patlents to tife
and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics, and similar institutions shall, to every extent
possible, be avoided and ali serious efforts, ot only-te labor and management, but government as
well, be exhausted, to substantially minimize, if noteprevent, their adverse effects on.such life and
health, through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by matiagement to
tockout, in labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operations such hospitals, clinics .or
medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking unfon or {ecking-out employer to provide and
maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, whose movement and
services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to ;insure the proper and adequate
Protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases; for the duration of
the strike or lock-out. in such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Empleyment may
immediately assume, within twenty-four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of guch a strike
or lock-out, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For
this purpase, the contending parties are strictly enjoined. to comply with such orders, prohibitions,


and/or injunctions’ as are issued by the Secretary of Labor or Commission, under pair: of immediate
disciplinary action, inctuding dismissal or loss or employment status or payment by the lecking-out

employer of backwages, damages, and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against
either or both of them.

The foregoing ciotwithstanding the President of the Philippines shall not be in precluded fram
determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to the national interest, and from
intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or
terminate the samevis hereby repeated.

Section 2, This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) national
newspapers of generat circulation

Approved,