Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In comments it has been making for a number of years, the Committee has been referring to the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed:

–      section 142 (inciting to sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems; uttering seditious words or speeches; writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government);

–      section 154 (publishing any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State, by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication).

While having noted the Government’s views expressed in its previous report, according to which the above provisions punish the acts of making speeches, writings or proclamations “that create a clear and present danger to the public safety, public order and public good”, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has considered that the range of activities which must be protected under Article 1(a) of the Convention comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views, which may be exercised orally and through the press and other communications media, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and the adoption of policies and laws reflecting them, and which also may be affected by measures of political coercion. The Committee observes that the above provisions of the Revised Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to be applied as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future in order to amend or repeal sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the amendment, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 142 and 154 in practice, including sample copies of relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to certain legislative provisions, under which, in the event of a planned or current strike in an industry considered “indispensable to the national interest”, the Secretary of Labour 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). 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 Labour 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 that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. It refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraph 189 of its 2007 General Survey, in which it has considered that, regardless of the legality of the strike action, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee points out, however, that the Convention does not prohibit the punishment of acts of violence, assault or destruction of property committed in connection with the strike.

Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), likewise ratified by Philippines, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend or repeal the above provisions of the Labour Code so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the participation in a strike, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress achieved in this regard.