In this light, the question has been raised whether government employees in the civil service - - who have been granted generally the right to self-organization, and qualifiedly, the night to collective bargaining -also have the right to strike. The Supreme Court, in a 1989 decision, answered in the negative. It noted that while the Constitution recognizes the right of government employees to organize, it is silent as to whether such recognition also includes the right to strike. Resorting to the intent of the framers of the organic law, it observed that the members of the Constitutional Commission intended to limit the right to the formation of unions and associations only, without including the right to strike. It cited Executive Order No. 180 regulating the exercise of the right to organize government employees which provides in Sec. 14 thereof that the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed, subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress. It stated that the President was apparently referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6 Series of 1987 of the Civil Service Law dated April 21, 1987 which, prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strikes by government employees, enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions all government employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which with result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. It continued that in the absence of any legislation allowing government employees to strike, recognizthg their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of the tight, they are prohibited from striking, by express provision of Memorandum Circular No. 6 and as implied in Executive Order No.
                           The court also passed upon the question of which entity had jurisdiction over the case. It held that the Regional Trial Court, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction under B.P. 129, had jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim fo1 damages and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the strike, since the Labor Code did not apply to government employees. (SSS Employees Association, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 175 SCRA 686.)
In a more recent decision, the Court ruled En Banc that as a general rule, even in the absence of express statutory prohibition like Memorandum Circular No. 6. public employees are denied the right to strike or engage in work stoppage against a public employer. The right of the sovereign to prohibit strikes or work stoppages by public employees was clearly recognized at common law. To grant employees of the public sector the right to strike there must be a clear and direct legislative authority therefore In the absence of any express legislation allowing government employees to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of the right, employees in the public service may not engage in strike, walk-outs and temporary work stoppage like workers in the private sector .(Bangalisan vs. CA, July 31, 1997)

                        Parenthetically, and to complete our discussion on the rights of government employees in this context, it is to be noted that employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, organized under the Corporation Code as well as those working in establishments whose controlling interests have been acquired by government financial institutions have the same rights in this regard as employees of private corporations. In the former case because such employees are engaged in proprietary functions of government (NARIC Workers Union vs. Alvendia, 107 Phil. 404) and are not members of the civil service, and in the latter because they are employed in entities which retain their essentially
private character and profit motivation. (AGW vs. Minister of Labor,124SCRA 1)

15. RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE. Under previous laws,
an employer could terminate the services of an employee with or without just cause, by simply giving him one month notice, or compensation (mesada) in lieu thereof. This placed the employee at the mercy of the employer on whom he depended for his and his family's livelihood.
                        This tenuous relationship has been drastically changed and rectified by the Labor Code in view of the right to security of tenure guaranteed by the Constitution (Art. XIII, Sec. 3). Tenure in employment means the right to continue in employment until the same is terminated under conditions required by law. Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution guarantees to workers security of tenure. (Palmeria vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 57)

16. RIGHT TO HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK. This
collective right ensures that working conditions take into account the health, safety and welfare of workers. The Labor Code is replete with provisions that address this concern. For instance, its entire Book IV on Health. Safety anti Social Welfare Benefits relates to medical and dental services, occupational health and safety, and a compensation program for employees and their dependents in the event of work-connected disability or death. The Ill of Book Ill regulates the working conditions for special groups of employees: working women, minors, house helpers and home workers. The Code also empowers the Secretary of Labor to order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of an establishment when non-compliance with the law poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace (Art. 128-c). These provisions, to cite only a few examples, illustrate the implementation of this Constitutional right of workers.

17. RIGHT TO A LIVING WAGE. The right to a living wage is a new right established in the present Constitution (Art. XIII, Sec. 3 ). The term refers not merely to the worker, but to his family as well, and the intent is to secure the means whereby a worker can secure the health, decency, well being and an improved quality of life for his family. This sight is therefore imbued with social justice implications.
                      A living wage is not the same as a minimum wage. For a minimum wage is a floor wage, fellow which remuneration cannot fall. Thus, it is basically a quantitative concept which, despite all the factors considered, may still be equated with the term “subsistence wage”. This has been accurately described in Black’s Law Dictionary as “the least wage on which an ordinary individual can be self-sustaining, and obtain the ordinary requirements of life.” (Id. Rev. 4th Ed, citing Asso. Industries of Oklahoma vs. Industrial Welfare Confirm mission, 185 Ok. 177)
                        But a living wage takes into consideration not only the worker himself, but also his family. It concerns not only his ordinary requirements of life, like food and shelter, but all the additional requirements of his family -- like education, clothing, health care, entertainment, etc. This is therefore a qualitative concept intended to secure the social end of eventually freeing the people from poverty, and providing an improved quality of life for all. (Art. II, Sec. 9, Constitution)

18. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND DECISION-
MAKING. The Protection to Labor clause also contains a new provision which states in pertinent part: “. . They (all officers ) shall also participate hi policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. .“ (Art. XIII, Sec.3)
                    As worded, this provision does not establish a right; it merely allows such a right if the legislature enacts the corresponding law. This status was firmed up as a right upon the effectively of Rep. Act. No. 6715 on March 21, 1989. Section 22 of this amendatory law provides on this point.
                    “Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment: may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and employers may form labor- management councils: provided, that the representatives of the workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment.” (id.)
                     This right does not apply to all types of policy and decision-making by management, but only to those that directly affect the rights, benefits and welfare of workers.
Aside from establishing this right, Rep. Act No.6715 also dispelled all doubts about the legitimacy of labor-management councils which are allowed even in organized establishments precisely to implement this pailicipatory right. In unorganized establishments, such councils are allowed to assist in promoting industrial peace. (Sec.33-h, R.A. 6715; Sec. 14-h, BP Big. 130).

19. OTHER FEATURES PROTECTING FILIPINO LABOR. The
Constitution also embodies other new provisions favorable to Filipino labor Specifically, it contains new nationalistic measures which further augment those currently in force.

Next Pages