Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Philippines (Ratification: 1960)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments.

1. Article 1(d) of the Convention. Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, in the event of a planned or current strike in an industry considered indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and settle it or certify it for compulsory arbitration. Furthermore, the President may determine the industries indispensable to the national interest and assume jurisdiction over a labour dispute (section 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended by Act No. 6715). The declaration of a strike after such assumption of jurisdiction or submission to compulsory arbitration is prohibited (section 264), and participation in an illegal strike is punishable by imprisonment (section 272(a) of the Labor Code), which involves an obligation to perform labour (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment for participants in illegal strikes (section 146).

The Committee recalls, with reference to paragraph 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour must be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, health, or personal safety of the whole or part of the population. In this regard, the Committee notes from the summary of the Technical Consultation Meeting of the Congressional Oversight Committee on Labor and Employment (COCLE), held on 14 November 2002, that recommendations for proposed amendments to the Labor Code included one to "limit the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor on disputes involving the national interest to disputes involving essential services only as defined by the ILO". The Committee notes, however, that several bills to amend the Labor Code that were subsequently filed in Congress have all been referred to committee with no further action being taken. These include House Bill No. 6517, filed on 22 October 2003, which sought to limit the power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment and the President of the Philippines to assume jurisdiction over labour disputes and refer them to compulsory arbitration to those disputes at "work establishments that may truly be considered as fulfilling essential services such as hospitals, water supply and electrical services, the lack of which would endanger life or public safety". They also include Senate Bill No. 1049, introduced in the 13th Congress on 30 June 2004, and House Bill No. 1505, filed on 19 July 2004, which both sought to limit the power to assume jurisdiction and compel arbitration to disputes "in an enterprise engaged in providing essential services such as hospital, electrical services, water supply, and communication and transportation". The Committee notes that House Bill No. 3723, filed on 8 February 2005, seeks to revoke the power granted to the Secretary of Labor and Employment under article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The Committee notes that the Bills leave intact the criminal penalties for illegal strikes including imprisonment (with an obligation to perform labour under the Revised Administrative Code), which are imposed under article 272(a) of the existing Labor Code.

The Committee recalls that the Committee on the Freedom of Association, in examining section 263(g) of the Labor Code in light of the principles of freedom of association in cases involving complaints against the Government of the Philippines submitted by the Association of Airline Pilots of the Philippines (Case No. 2195) and by the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers’ Association (Case No. 2252), has underlined that "the criterion which has to be established is the existence of a clear and imminent threat to life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population", and that a back-to-work requirement outside such cases is contrary to the principle of freedom of association (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXVI, 2003, Series B, No. 3, paragraph 883). It has also recalled that the "responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should not lie with the Government but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved" (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXV, 2002, Series B, No. 3, paragraph 736), referring to paragraph 522 of its 1996 Digest of decisions and principles. It has therefore urged the Government to amend section 263(g) of the Labor Code in order to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee notes that, in regard to transportation, the Committee on Freedom of Association, referring to paragraphs 540 and 545 of its 1996 Digest, recalled in Case No. 2195 (paragraph 737) that it has never considered transport in general to constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government to amend the Labor Code with a view to bringing it into full conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that progress has been made to that end.

2. Article 1(a). Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for expression of political views. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 142 of the revised Penal Code, a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems, incite others to acts constituting sedition, utter seditious words or speeches, or write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1), a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication, maliciously publishes as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work) may be imposed in the situations covered by the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its report of 1999 that a proposal to amend section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code has been submitted. However, the Government stated in its latest report that this section governs the administration of prisons and ensures that the prisoners maintain hygiene and sanitation and keeps them productively occupied while serving their term of imprisonment.

While noting this statement, the Committee wished to draw the attention of the Government to paragraphs 102-109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that labour imposed as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will, in most cases, have no relevance to the application of the Convention; but on the other hand, if any form of compulsory labour, including prison labour, is imposed on a person because he holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention.

The Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be adopted in the near future to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard, and requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the action taken. Pending amendment of the legislation, the Government is again requested to provide information on the application in practice of sections 142 and 154(1) of the Penal Code, including statistics of convictions made thereunder and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.