Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

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 its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s information that sections 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) and 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) of the revised Penal Code do not provide for a penalty of forced labour but rather for penalties of detention: prision correccional and arresto mayor. The Committee observed that the above-mentioned provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to be applied as a means of punishment for the peaceful expression of views, enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour under Chapter 2, section 2, of the Bureau of Corrections manual. It also noted with regret that under section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, libel may be punishable by a prison sentence involving compulsory prison labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that legal provisions such as sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code, along with section 4(c)(4) of the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, are designed to strike a balance between the protection of individual freedoms and the maintenance of a stable and secure society. The Government states that although crimes against national security and public order are punishable by administrative and penal sanctions, the Presidential Committee on the Grant of Bail, Release and Pardon (PCBRep) has been established to review cases involving individuals convicted for crimes against national security and public order. This mechanism allows for a careful consideration of individual cases and the possibility of releasing political offenders through presidential pardon.

The Committee also notes that the offences under sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code and section 4(c)(4) of the Anti-Cyber Crime Law (read in conjunction with section 355 (Libel) of the Revised Penal Code) shall be punishable with penalties involving prision correccional or arrestomayor either with or without fines. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the above-mentioned provisions in order to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code and section 4(c)(4) of the Anti-Cyber Crime Law. Lastly, it requests the Government to provide examples of cases where political offenders convicted for crimes against national security and public order have been released by the Presidential Committee on the Grant of Bail, Release and Pardon.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a certain number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 263(g) of the Labor Code, under which 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. Declaration of a strike after such “assumption of jurisdiction” or submission to compulsory arbitration is prohibited (section 264). Observing that pursuant to sections 272(a) and 264 of the Labour Code and 146 of the Penal Code, participation in illegal strikes is punishable with imprisonment that involves compulsory prison labour, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned provisions so as to ensure that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed for the mere fact of persons peacefully participating in strikes.

The Committee notes that as per the revised and consolidated Labour Code of 2022, sections 263(g), 264 and 272(a) have been renumbered to sections 278(g), 279 and 287(a), respectively. In this regard the Committee notes that, according to section 287(a) of the revised Labour Code, the declaration of a strike without having first bargained collectively, or after assumption of jurisdiction pursuant to section 279, shall be punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment for not more than three years. It also notes that according to section 146 of the Revised Penal Code, penalties of prision correccional or prision mayor shall be imposed upon organizers or leaders of any meeting attended by armed persons for committing crimes under this Code, and that mere participation in an unarmed assembly or strike shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. The Committee further notes the Government’s reference to section 281 of the Labour Code which states that, except on grounds of national security and public peace or in case of a commission of a crime, no union members or union organizers may be arrested or detained for union activities without previous consultations with the Secretary of Labour. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that several labour relations Bills have been filed and are now pending before the House of Representatives’ Committee on Labour and Employment. It refers to: (i) House Bill No. 7043, an Act for strengthening and protecting workers’ right to strike and to eliminate dismissal and imprisonment as penalties for union officers engaging in illegal strikes; (ii) House Bill No. 7096, an Act repealing the provisions on assumption of jurisdiction under section 278(g) of the Labour Code; and (iii) House Bill No. 5536, an Act proposing the adoption of “essential services” criteria for the exercise of assumption of jurisdiction. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that House Bills Nos 7096 and 5536 and in particular House Bill No. 7043, which aim to remove penalties of imprisonment for engaging in illegal strikes, will be adopted in the near future. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on all court decisions issued under sections 279 and 287(a) of the Labour Code, as well as section 146 of the revised Penal Code, in order to assess their application in practice, indicating in particular the facts that gave rise to the conviction, and the penalties applied.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.