| |
CHAPTER II
LABOR POLICIES AND
RIGHTS IN THE
CONSTITUTION
1. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO
LABOR
LAW. Aside from being one of two sources of the State’s
authority to enact labor laws, the Constitution is of fundamental
significance in this field of law. The 1987 Constitution embodies
new provisions directly affecting the tights and welfare of labor.
The present Constitution introduces new provisions which are
significant to labor law. These may be summarized as follows: a) It
defines new State policies on labor, b) It guarantees individual and
collective rights of workers; and c) It contains nationalistic
provisions protecting Filipino labor.
2. NEW CONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES CONCERNING
LABOR. The Constitution adopts the following new policies
regarding labor:
Art XII, Sec. 18. The state affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect the right of workers and promote
their welfare.
This is the first time that a Philippine Constitution gives explicit
recognition to the role of labor in social and economic development.
It also states a policy of protection for the rights and welfare of
notices.
Art. XII, Sec. 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of
Filipino labor domestic materials and locally produced goods, and
adopt measures that help make them more competitive.
This is a strongly nationalistic policy favoring Filipino labor, raw
materials and finished products which the State seeks to promote and
strengthen.
Art. XIII, Sec. 3.”... The State shall promote the principle of said
responsibility between workers and employers, and the preferential
use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation,
and shall enforce their mutual compliance the, with to foster
industrial peace.”
For the first time the Constitution expresses a -preference in the
method of resolving industrial disputes. This is through the use of
voluntary modes such as negotiation, collective bargaining,
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation. The reason is
that these modes are less frictional and entail less social costs to
the parties, to government, and to society as a whole.
Art. XIII, Sec. 14, “The State shall project working women by
providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account
their maternal functions, and provide such facilities and
opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to
realize their full potential in the service of the nation.”
The protection of working women, which the previous Constitution
mentioned only incidentally, is now given a separate title in view
of the important role of women in Filipino society.
3. RESTATEMENT OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
POLICIES. The Constitution also restates and rephrases
policies established in the previous Constitution, and readapts them
for further implementation.
These policies are:
“The State shall afford fish protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for...
” (Art. XIII, Sec.3) This is a more positive and comprehensive
restatement of the Protection to Labor clause.
“. . . The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the
fruits of production, and the right of enterprises to reasonable
returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.” (Art. XIII,
Sec3)
This policy precludes the State from adopting a laissez faire policy
on labor relations due to the public interest involved therein, it
also provides guidelines by which the State’s regulatory power shall
be exercised.
4. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR.
The Constitution is the bedrock
of the most fundamental rights of labor. These rights guaranteed by
the Constitution may be classified into two, namely: a) individual
rights of workers; and b) collective rights of labor in general.
The individual rights of workers are found in Art. III, Bill of
Rights, which is described as “the charter of individual liberties.”
While all persons enjoy these rights, their particular application
to workers carries a certain significance which requires special
consideration.
The collective rights of labor in general are enshrined in the
Protection to Labor clause, Art. XIII, Sec. 3.
These two sets of rights are not identical. In fact they may
possibly conflict with each other, as will be noted later.
A. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS
5. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS Sect. I - “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
(Art. 111, Const.)
This is the due process/equal protection clause. An early
application of the due process clause interpreted the right to
property to include a worker’s right to his labor and to the fmits
of his industry. Hence, a worker cannot be deprived of his job or
his wages without die process of law (Philippine Moving Pictures
Workers Association vs. Premier Productions, 92 Phil 843). In a more
recent case the Supreme Court declared that “It is a principle well
recognized in this jurisdiction, that one’s employment, profession,
trade or calling is a property right, and the wrongful interference
therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be
property within the protection of the Constitutional guarantee of
due. process of law (Calianta vs. Carnation Phil., 145 SCRA 268
citing Femandt, Constitution of the Phil. 2nd Ed. ‘pp. 512-513).
6. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. Sec. 4
- - No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
(Art. III, Const.)
The freedom of expression clause quoted above is derived from the
Philippine Bill of 1902 which replicated verbatim the corresponding
provision in the U. S. Constitution (1935), reaffirmed in the 1972
Constitution, and now appears in the 1987 Constitution which adds
“expression” to the freedoms protected.
American jurisprudence interpreting this provision has applied it to
cover the labor practice of picketing. Hence, it has been declared
that “by peaceful picketing, working men communicate their
grievances.” As a means of communicating the fact of a labor
dispute, peaceful picketing may be a phase of the Constitutional
right of free utterance. But recognition of peaceful picketing as an
exercise of free speech does not imply that the States must be
without power to confine the sphere of communication to that
directly related to the dispute. (Carpenters and Joiners Union vs.
Ritters Cafe, 315 U.S. 722) In a more direct statement, it has been
held that “what is protected is the element of communication, not
the act of patrolling or marching which may be subject to reasonable
regulation.” (International Brotherhood of Teamsters vs. Hanke,
1950)
The first local application of this guarantee to a case of peaceful
picketing is recorded in Mortera vs. CIR (79 Phil. 345). This
protection was expanded to apply to cases even where
employer-employee relationship was absent. (de Leon vs. NLU, 100
Phil. 789, PAFLU ‘‘s. Barot, 99 Phil. 1008) However, subsequent
doctrines have established the power of the court to limit the
exercise of the right to parties involved in the labor dispute, or
having a direct interest to the context of this issue. (PAFLU vs.
Cloribel, 27 SCRA 465 ; RPM Workers Association vs. Reyes, 124 Phil.
1442) In the later case of Liwayway Publications vs. Permanent
Concrete Workers Union. et al (108 SCRA 16), the Supreme Court,
while allowing that peaceful picketing is a phase of the freedom of
expression guaranteed by the Constitution and could not be curtailed
even in the absence of employer-employee relationship, maintained
that this is not an absolute right. The courts, it ruled, are not
without power to localize the sphere of demonstration, whose
interest are foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus the right
may be recognized at the instance of an “innocent - bystander” who
is not involved in the labor dispute if it appears that the result
of the picketing is to create an impression that a labor dispute
exists between him and the picketing union. (See also TUPAS vs.
Cóscolluela, 140 SCRA 302) The prohibition against injunction does
not apply when petitioned by a third party whose property is sought
to be levied in satisfaction of a judgment debt against another
(Penalosa vs. Villanueva, 177 SCRA 778). Courts, in the exercise of
their equity jurisdiction, may issue injunction where the concerted
activities are aimed at compelling the employer to ignore a clear
mandate of the law. (Bulletin Publishing Corp. vs. Sanchez, 144 SCRA
628)
These antecedent rulings amortize the limitation of the exercise of
picketing in certain cases allowed by law or equity.
Moreover, the law also prescribes the instances when injunction may
lie against strikes, and picketing may be enjoined or restrained.
(Art. 318, Sec. 3 (c) Art. 264 LC as amended by BP 227)Apart from
these, the principle remains that no general injunction shall lie
against peaceful picketing.
The freedom of expression is available to individual workers subject
to the legal limitation of industrial peace t air their valid
grievances. (Kap. Manggagawa ng Camara Shoes vs. Camara Shoes, 111
SCRA478)
7. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. The pertinent text in the Bill
of Rights provides:
Sec. 8 -- The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged
(Art.!!!, Const.).
Next Pages
|
|
