Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Philippines (Ratification: 1953)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2026, Publication: 114th ILC session (2026)

Written information provided by the Government

A. Assumption of jurisdiction

The Government recognizes that strike is an essential and legitimate means through which workers may further and defend their interests. However, the Government notes that the issue of assumption of jurisdiction is being raised in the context of the workers’ right to strike, which has been submitted to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. Hence, prudence dictates the need for restraint in scrutinizing matters related thereto.

The Government submits that the power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to assume jurisdiction over labour disputes in an industry indispensable to the national interest pursuant to article 278(g) of the Labor Code is an extraordinary mechanism aimed at preserving industrial peace by maintaining the status quo and preventing the parties to a dispute from committing acts that may further aggravate the situation. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to strike, while constitutionally protected, is not absolute, and that the SOLE’s authority to assume jurisdiction does not interfere with trade union rights, but rather is a reasonable exercise of the State’s police power to promote the public good.

In practice, the exercise of this power remains the exception rather than the rule, as the Government continues to promote voluntary modes of settling labour disputes. From June 2022 to the present, the SOLE assumed jurisdiction over 12 out of 28 cases based on petitions for assumption involving a tyre manufacturer, a pharmaceuticals company, electric cooperatives, an educational institution and a telecommunications company, as well as one government-owned and controlled corporation and a multinational beverage company. In addition, the SOLE exercised the authority motu proprio in eight cases in the following industries: hotel, motorcycle parts manufacturing, electricity, electronics manufacturing, tollway operations, and education.

As these figures demonstrate, the exercise of the power to assume jurisdiction is not automatic but guided by the imperatives of preserving employment and protecting public welfare. The SOLE has consistently exercised the power sparingly and prudently, taking into account the circumstances of each case, the nature and extent of the dispute, its potential impact on the public and the workers, the status of conciliation and mediation efforts, and the overall labour relations environment.

For instance, while the education sector is not expressly included in the list of industries indispensable to the national interest, the SOLE assumed jurisdiction upon a determination that an impending strike would not only disrupt the school’s operations and affect the workers’ livelihoods, but would also, more importantly, unduly prejudice the students and impede the completion of their academic requirements.

Similarly, in a case involving a bargaining deadlock in the hotel industry, the union and the management declared their respective intentions to stage a strike and implement a lockout. In assuming jurisdiction, the SOLE took into consideration that the threatened lockout would displace more than 300 employees, including 137 union members, thereby aggravating the dispute. The SOLE likewise recognized the broader economic impact of the dispute, particularly considering the vital role of the tourism industry in the country’s economic recovery after the pandemic.

In assuming jurisdiction over a dispute between a multinational beverage company and its three unions, the SOLE cited case law recognizing the exercise of jurisdiction involving the same company and noted that work stoppage would prejudice 6,000 businesses, which would have repercussions not only for the company but also for government revenues, considering the company’s substantial tax contributions amounting to nearly 19 billion Philippine pesos in 2023.

The labour sector likewise recognizes the broader socio-economic impact of a labour dispute as there have been instances where the unions themselves petitioned for assumption of jurisdiction in industries not traditionally considered indispensable to the national interest, such as a bus transport company and exporters of Cavendish bananas. In requesting the National Conciliation and Mediation Board to facilitate the settlement of a dispute involving a banana exporter, the workers’ group cited the possible impact on government revenue, GDP, and the livelihoods of communities and workers. The Secretary did not ultimately assume jurisdiction over these cases due to the settlement reached by the parties.

Bills filed in the previous Congress seeking to limit this power to essential services were not enacted. Three bills on the same subject matter, including one proposing the total repeal of this power, are presently pending with the House Committee on Labor and Employment.

The Executive, as a co-equal branch of government, fully respects the Legislature’s prerogative to determine whether to retain, refine or limit the existing framework. This is especially so since the sector has their representatives in Congress, particularly through the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) Party-list and the Kamanggagawa Party-list.

B. Certification as sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA)

On 9 February 2026, the former Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment in the case San Miguel Integrated Logistics Services, Inc. (SMILSI) v. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), et al. (CA-G.R. SP No. 184711). As such, its 29 May 2025 decision, which the Government reported to the ILO, declaring invalid the rule on SEBA certification under DOLE Department Order No. 40-J, series of 2022 (DO40-J), became final and executory.

To recall, the Court explained in its decision that article 269 of the Labor Code mandates the conduct of a certification election in unorganized establishments regardless of the number of legitimate labour organizations (LLOs) present in the establishment. By allowing the recognition of a SEBA in an unorganized establishment without a certification election where only one LLO operates, DO40-J was held invalid for being contrary to law.

In compliance with the court’s decision, on 29 April 2026, the DOLE issued Labor Advisory No. 7, series of 2026, immediately and permanently discontinuing the implementation of DO40-J. The Advisory nonetheless emphasizes that LLOs which had attained SEBA status as of 1 August 2025 shall continue to be recognized as such, unless they subsequently lose their SEBA status in a valid certification election or upon an order by a competent authority. Collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) entered into by LLOs that were issued SEBA certification prior to 1 August 2025 shall also remain valid.

The court’s decision, however, should not be construed as diminishing or impairing collective bargaining rights. It merely reaffirms the statutory mechanism prescribed by law for the determination of the bargaining agent.

First, article 269 of the Labor Code mandates the Mediator-Arbiter to automatically order the conduct of a certification election in an unorganized establishment upon the filing of a petition. Second, section 19, Rule VIII of DO40, as amended, expressly states that this Order is not subject to appeal. Third, the safeguards recognized by the Committee continue to apply under the certification election process. The certification election is supervised by the DOLE and carried out independently. The exclusive bargaining agent is determined by secret ballot and majority vote of the employees in the bargaining unit, while the employers are precluded from opposing the petition pursuant to the bystander rule. The minority unions may also request a new election after the lapse of the period provided by law. Ultimately, the fundamental principle of ensuring the free and genuine selection of the bargaining agent in an unorganized establishment remains fully respected both in practice and in law.

C. Collective bargaining in the electricity sector

The concerns raised by the workers’ group in the electricity sector involve an issuance by the National Electrification Administration (NEA), Memorandum Circular No. 2014-003 which the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court ruled to be valid and not unconstitutional. In 2023, it was superseded by Memorandum Circular No. 2023-052. As clearly pointed out by the Philippine judicial authorities in their decisions, the NEA issuance does not stifle the right to collective bargaining.

The NEA issuance was prompted by legitimate regulatory and policy considerations, particularly the adverse consequences of certain monetary concessions under CBAs on the financial and operational viability of several electric cooperatives. In this regard, the Government emphasizes that, as a developing State, the Philippines has a substantial and legitimate interest in ensuring essential electric service to the public through the continued implementation of rural electrification programmes. Such an objective requires the maintenance of stable, efficient, and financially viable operations of electric cooperatives, especially those serving rural and geographically isolated communities. In other words, and considering the courts’ rulings, the issuance was adopted in good faith to provide a mechanism for the exchange of views among concerned stakeholders so that social and economic considerations may be taken into account in the bargaining process, especially as the industry involved here is imbued with public interest and regulated by the State. The Government, therefore, requests the Committee to consider that the issuance of MC 2014-003 and MC 2023-052 was not attended by malice and wilful intent to circumvent the principles of collective bargaining.

In any case, the DOLE has facilitated dialogues between the NEA and the workers’ group, represented by the National Union of Workers in the Power Industry (POWER-SENTRO) which raised the matter before the ILO. As reported to the Committee, a series of dialogues and joint capacity-building activities were conducted in 2024 and 2025.

In addition to those reported in September 2025, the DOLE, NEA, and POWER-SENTRO held further dialogues on 1 October 2025, during which the NEA announced the suspension of Memorandum Circular No. 2023-052. This was formalized through Memorandum No. 2025-50 dated 16 October 2025, which took effect upon its filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register on 23 October 2025.

In March and April 2026, the DOLE, through the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), also convened two bilateral meetings with POWER-SENTRO for the review of a draft manual on collective bargaining. The manual seeks to address concerns arising from varying interpretations and practices on the ground by providing a bargaining framework in the power sector that is based on the Constitution, the Labor Code, and relevant ILO Conventions. As agreed with the workers’ groups, the manual will be finalized in consultation with them prior to its presentation to the regulatory agencies.

Another significant matter discussed during bilateral meetings was the proposal to establish a National Tripartite Council for Electric Cooperatives (NTCEC). Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10395 (Tripartism Law) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the proposal requires consultation with the concerned stakeholders and the concurrence of the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC), as the main tripartite consultative body on labour and employment issues. The matter was raised during the NTIPC meeting on 7 April 2026, during which the NTIPC agreed to convene a special session with representatives from the NEA, workers’ groups, and other regulatory bodies to further discuss the proposal.

At the same NTIPC meeting, the social partners moved to adopt a resolution calling for the total revocation of Memorandum Circular No. 2023-052. The resolution has been approved in principle and is now being routed for signature. In the meantime, the issuance remains suspended.

In view of the ongoing good-faith efforts and constructive engagements initiated by the Government, the Government finds the possible inclusion of this matter for further scrutiny to be unnecessary and inconsistent with the progress made to date.

The Government recalls the primacy that the ILO and its supervisory bodies accord to the voluntary and amicable settlement of issues within the domestic framework. The issuance has been suspended, and the bargaining framework under the Labor Code continues to govern. Representatives from both electric cooperatives and workers’ groups have been capacitated on conciliation and collective bargaining, equipping them with tools, skills and techniques that emphasize respect for workers’ rights while ensuring the stable and uninterrupted delivery of electric services to the public. Meanwhile, there are also ongoing discussions to establish a national tripartite council and to formulate a manual on collective bargaining for the electricity sector.

With these manifestations, it is the Government’s humble submission that an examination of this matter before the Committee may prejudice the ongoing discussions and undermine the momentum toward an amicable resolution at the national level. The Government respectfully requests the Committee to defer further consideration of this issue while the concerned stakeholders continue their efforts to address it through sustained dialogue and consultation.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – The fourth case today deals with the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), by the Philippines. For the discussion of this case we have 21 registered speakers. In light of this, the Officers of the Committee have decided to reduce the maximum time for individual speakers from five to three minutes.

I now invite the Government representative of the Philippines, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, to take the floor.

Government representative – The Government appreciates the opportunity to provide information and clarification on the country’s implementation of the Convention. On behalf of our Minister, Francis N. Tolentino, we extend our warmest felicitations to the Committee on the occasion of its centenary anniversary. The Committee’s work has indeed significantly contributed to the realization of the mandates of the ILO’s entire supervisory mechanism.

Let me start by emphasizing that the right to collective bargaining is protected in the Philippine jurisdiction both in law and in practice. Our Constitution and the Labor Code guarantee this right. Under the Labor Code, collective bargaining rests on a clear and enforceable legal framework. The law sets out the bargaining procedures, defines the duty to bargain in good faith, provides remedies for violations, and treats as unfair labour practice the refusal or failure by either party to bargain collectively. This also include the flagrant or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.

Precisely because Philippine laws give concrete effect to the guarantees under the Convention, the Philippines regrets its inclusion in the present examination. The issues raised do not reflect an arbitrary denial or restriction of the right to collective bargaining, nor do they show a failure to engage with the social partners. On the contrary, these matters are already being addressed through existing administrative, legal and tripartite processes.

Our interventions today will be guided by the report of the Committee of Experts, particularly its observations regarding the alleged interference in collective bargaining in the electricity sector, the scope and content of collective bargaining in contracting arrangements and in the informal economy, and the determination of bargaining representative status. We consider these issues central to a balanced and constructive examination and hope they will help focus the discussion on the matters most relevant to the case before us.

On collective bargaining in the electricity sector, while we take note of the issues raised by Worker members, these have already been, and continue to be, addressed through dialogue, consultation and capacity-building initiatives. As we have emphasized in our response to the Committee submitted on 14 May 2026, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has been facilitating dialogues and organizing capacity-building activities for both the management and union representatives in electric cooperatives aimed at supporting constructive labour-management relations.

This demonstrates that the Government has actively engaged the issue through existing institutional mechanisms. In particular, we pursued a constructive and balanced approach through sustained dialogue with the concerned workers’ groups, including the National Union of Workers in the Power Industry-Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa (POWER-SENTRO). These discussions have yielded concrete results. On 16 October 2025, the National Electrification Administration (NEA) suspended the application of Memorandum Circular No. 2023-052 – the administrative issuance at issue in the present case. Its suspension halted the application of the questioned measure and created room for continued dialogue on a bargaining framework that protects workers’ rights while safeguarding the public interest in electric cooperatives.

While the Government recognizes that implementation gaps remain, particularly due to varying interpretations on the ground, we have taken further measures to address these gaps. These measures include ongoing discussions on a draft manual for a collective bargaining framework in the electricity sector, the proposed creation of a national tripartite council for electric cooperatives and the resolution of the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) calling for the total revocation of Memorandum Circular No. 2023-052.

Taken together, these developments show that the matter is being actively addressed through legal, administrative and tripartite mechanisms, and that the Government has provided substantive responses and taken concrete follow-through action. In this regard, the Government recalls that under the Committee’s working methods, the criteria for the selection of individual cases include, among others, the quality and scope of responses provided by the Government or the absence of a response on its part; the seriousness and persistence of shortcomings in the application of the Convention; and the urgency of a specific situation.

The Government respectfully reiterates that this matter does not show an arbitrary denial of collective bargaining rights or a refusal to comply with the Convention. Rather, the issuance was prompted by the need to address past collective bargaining practices that had adversely affected the financial and operational viability of several electric cooperatives. Nor can it be argued that the Government has persistently failed or lacked the will to resolve the issue. On the contrary, the continuing engagement among the social partners demonstrates that the matter is being addressed through dialogue in good faith, and within the appropriate institutional processes. We respectfully submit that the best path forward is to allow these discussions to continue, anchored in mutual trust and constructive engagement.

With respect to collective bargaining in the informal economy, the Government submits that the challenge is not the absence of legal avenues for organization and representation, but the need to further develop mechanisms suited to the realities of informal work. Under Philippine laws, they may form workers’ associations, represent their members and negotiate with appropriate authorities for their mutual aid and protection. The Philippine Institute for Labor Studies is undertaking a study on how these workers’ associations may be strengthened in the context of representation and negotiation. The Government would welcome ILO technical assistance in this regard.

On the issue raised regarding the impact of contracting and subcontracting arrangements on collective bargaining rights, the Government respectfully submits that the issue is not the mere existence of such arrangements, but whether adequate safeguards are in place to protect workers’ rights. In the Philippines, these arrangements are regulated, and workers covered by them are afforded the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their direct employers. We further wish to inform the Committee that the rules governing contracting and subcontracting are currently under review, with the participation of the social partners and with full regard to fundamental principles and rights at work.

On the issue of collective bargaining status, in our submission dated 14 May 2026, the Government informed the Committee that the Court of Appeals’ decision invalidating DOLE Department Order No. 40-J, series of 2022 (DO 40-J), had become final. This rule previously allowed the certification of a sole and exclusive bargaining agent even without a certification election, where only one union exists in an unorganized establishment. As a co-equal branch of Government, the judiciary’s ruling must be respected by the DOLE.

The Government notes the concerns raised by the labour sector on the possible impact of this ruling on the determination of representation status in unorganized establishments. The Government recognizes that certification election is an important and democratic process for determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. At the same time, the process should remain prompt and should not cause unnecessary delay, especially where only one labour organization exists in the establishment. The Department will therefore continue to monitor the situation and act on petitions for certification election in accordance with article 269 of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. The Government reiterates that safeguards are in place to ensure that the process remains prompt, fair and objective, consistent with the Convention. This matter has already been discussed with the social partners and the Government remains of the view that continued dialogue within the tripartite framework provides the appropriate way forward.

Given the foregoing submissions, the Philippines regrets its inclusion in the present examination, particularly in light of the clarifications and the concrete measures undertaken provided in its 14 May 2026 response.

The Government has consistently engaged the ILO supervisory process and the social partners in good faith. Following the Committee’s examinations in 2019, 2023 and 2024 concerning the country’s application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Government worked with the social partners and the Office to translate the Committee’s observations into concrete action.

This is also true in this case. The Philippine Government appears before the Committee with full respect for the ILO supervisory mechanism and with a clear commitment to address genuine issues arising from the application of the Convention. In this spirit, the Government respectfully hopes that the discussion will give due weight to the measures already undertaken, the institutional processes in place and the continuing engagement with the social partners.

The Philippines does not claim that all issues have been fully resolved. However, we respectfully emphasize that these concerns should be assessed in their full context, including the country’s legal framework, institutional mechanisms and the concrete actions undertaken through social dialogue.

As a final note, the Government recognizes the close relationship between the Convention and Convention No. 87. However, for the purposes of the present examination, we respectfully submit that the discussion should remain focused on the specific standards, issues, and factual context relevant to Convention No. 98.

The Government is prepared to engage constructively on all matters raised. At the same time, we believe that a fair and useful discussion requires a complete factual context and an accurate account of the measures undertaken, the remedies available and the actions still being pursued.

Worker members – This is the first time that our Committee reviews the application of the Convention by the Philippines. However, the Committee is already familiar with the long-standing and systematic issues concerning the right to organize and collectively bargain in the country, notably through its repeated examination of Convention No. 87. The Worker members note persistent gaps between the requirements of Convention No. 98 and both the legal framework and practice in the Philippines. Despite repeated comments by the Committee of Experts over several years, the issues identified remain largely unresolved and continue to affect a broad range of workers across sectors.

At the outset, we recall that Article 4 of the Convention requires measures to encourage and promote voluntary negotiation between employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment through collective agreements. This requires an enabling legal and institutional framework that allows all workers covered by the Convention to effectively exercise collective bargaining rights in practice. In this regard, we are deeply concerned that a significant number of categories of workers continue to be excluded from the right to collective bargaining, namely prison staff, fire service personnel, self-employed workers, temporary and part-time workers, outsourced and contract workers, non-resident and migrant workers, agriculture and domestic workers. These exclusions are incompatible with the requirements of the Convention which covers all workers in the private sector regardless of their employment or residency status and guarantees the right to collective bargaining to all public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. Worker members note that several legislative reforms concerning the right of these workers to organize have remained pending in Congress for years.

Therefore, in line with the comments of the Committee of Experts, we call on the Government to amend its legislation without delay to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention can effectively enjoy and exercise their right to collective bargaining. With regard to certification procedures for trade unions in unorganized establishments, we take note of the Court of Appeals’ ruling declaring the DOLE department order beyond scope and invalid. We also note the Government’s indication that the DOLE has discontinued the order while maintaining the status of unions already recognized as sole and exclusive bargaining agents and preserving the validity of collective agreements concluded under the previous framework. The Government further indicates that certification elections will not apply under article 269 of the Labor Code. This development is concerning.

The procedure provided by the Labor Code is deeply flawed as, in practice, it enables employer interference in certification elections. The Worker members wish to stress the need for the Government to adopt and implement a certification procedure that ensures that trade unions are not subjected to unnecessary delays, administrative barriers, undue interference by employers or procedural uncertainty that could undermine their ability to secure recognition as bargaining agents. With regard to Executive Order No. 180 and the 2024 Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, the Worker members remain deeply concerned that collective bargaining in the public sector is limited to matters not fixed by law and explicitly excludes compensation. According to the Government, wage-related matters are excluded due to national practice and jurisprudence while alternative consultation mechanisms exist.

The Worker members recall that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State must be able to negotiate wages, benefits, allowance and working time. Mere consultation is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention. Genuine collective bargaining must include the possibility of negotiating core terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration. We therefore echo the request of the Committee of Experts that the Government take concrete steps in consultation with the social partners to enable meaningful collective bargaining on compensation and related matters in the public sector.

Furthermore, the situation in the electricity sector raises serious concerns. The Committee of Experts has highlighted severe restrictions on the scope and content of collective bargaining resulting from the involvement of multi-stakeholder consultative bodies in the review and negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. In the lead-up to this discussion, the Government supplied additional information indicating that the social partners in the NTIPC agreed to revoke the regulation establishing multi-stakeholder involvement. According to the Government, the regulations are suspended pending the signature of a resolution, and the bargaining framework under the Labor Code continues to govern. The Government also indicates that discussions are ongoing towards the establishment of a national tripartite council for electric cooperatives. While we acknowledge these developments, we remain concerned that uncertainty persists regarding the framework governing collective bargaining in the electricity sector.

The Worker members recall that collective bargaining can only function effectively where workers’ and employers’ organizations are able to negotiate freely. It is therefore essential that any new institutional framework complies with the requirements of the Convention and guarantees the autonomy of the bargaining parties. More broadly, we are concerned that the Labor Code continues to allow the Government to impose compulsory arbitration in an overly broad range of sectors in a manner that undermines free and voluntary collective bargaining. We recall that in the cases where the parties do not reach agreement through collective bargaining, recourse to compulsory arbitration is permissible only in the context of strictly defined essential services. Finally, while we take note of the reported increase in the number of registered collective bargaining agreements, we remain concerned that overall collective bargaining coverage remains extremely low compared to the size of the workforce.

This indicates that structural barriers continue to limit the full development and utilization of collective bargaining as envisaged by the Convention. The Worker members consider that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts are not isolated or technical in nature. They reflect broader structural challenges affecting both the scope and autonomy of collective bargaining in the country. The Worker members therefore request the Government to engage fully and constructively with the social partners and to undertake the reforms necessary to bring law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

Employer members – We note and welcome the information shared by the Government of the Philippines. The information demonstrates the Government’s intention to address concerns raised in connection with its application of the Convention, including in various identified sectors. We wish to encourage the Philippines to continue taking steps to investigate, respond and/or remediate the issues regarding the implementation of the Convention through its national laws and practice. The Convention is a fundamental Convention which the Philippines ratified in 1953.

This is the first time that the Committee is examining the implementation of the Convention by the Philippines. We note that the Committee of Experts has made 13 observations in this case since 1999 with the latest being in 2025. We also note that this case comes on the heels of multiple cases and observations involving the Philippines relating to Convention No. 87 which included serious concerns of trade union violence and extrajudicial killings. However, our focus will remain on Convention No. 98, which is the case at hand. Employer members note and welcome the progress made in the Philippines since the High-Level Tripartite Mission which took place in 2023 particularly with respect to the elaboration of the tripartite road map and review of the guidelines on the conduct of stakeholders.

We also welcome the continued collaboration between the Philippines, its social partners and the ILO which is important for this progress. However, noting progress and collaboration does not minimize the seriousness of the events that preceded this case. Turning now to the Committee of Experts’ observations, we note that there are legislative exclusions of certain categories of workers from the right to collectively bargain including prison staff, fire service personnel, self-employed and temporary workers, outsourced or contract workers, non-resident workers and part-time workers. We also note the scope that public sector workers can collectively bargain over is limited to those matters not fixed by law and excludes compensation. The Committee of Experts also expressed concerns regarding Memorandum No. 2023-052 of the NEA, which requires the participation of multi-sectoral consultative panels in collective bargaining for electric cooperatives.

The Committee of Experts also requested the Government to provide information on, or clarification on, other specific aspects of collective bargaining and requested the Government to continue to take all the necessary legal and practical measures to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention and to provide applicable statistics. The Committee of Experts noted the ILO’s continuous assistance to the Philippines through its decent work country programme, focused mainly on issues raised under Convention No. 87 and expressed through the tripartite road map on freedom of association adopted by the NTIPC and the related ILO High-Level Tripartite Mission in January 2023. We welcome this. Employer members wish to stress again their commitment to the full expression of the Convention in both law and practice. Our sincere hope is that these proceedings can facilitate meaningful development in the Philippines on these critical issues.

In this regard, the Employer members wish to note the following: violence and coercion of any kind that inhibits workers’ and employers’ groups from expressing their rights and freedoms under the Convention cannot be tolerated. Noting the Committee of Experts’ concern regarding the exclusion of certain categories of workers from the right to collectively bargain, we recall that Article 4 of the Convention provides that “measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.” In this regard, it is our view that access to this right depends on whether workers have an employment relationship which is determined under national law and practice. Accordingly, we respectfully disagree that this right extends to genuine self-employed workers or any workers not in an employment relationship.

With regard to certain public sector workers not fully enjoying their rights under the Convention, we note that Article 6 provides that “this Convention does not deal with the position of public servants engaged in the administration of the State, nor shall it be construed as prejudicing their rights or status in any way.” The Employer members believe that the determination of whether certain public servants are engaged in the administration of State must be made on the facts of each case with due consideration of the applicable national laws and practice. To date, the collaboration between the Philippines, the social partners and the ILO has been fruitful and has led to meaningful developments. Of course, more can be done, including in finalizing the manual for collective bargaining in the electricity sector. We therefore encourage the Government to continue its collaboration with the ILO and to access technical assistance in order to harmonize its laws with the Convention.

This would address the concerns of the Committee of Experts about sectors like the electrical sector and the informal sector and whether exclusions of certain public sector workers from collective bargaining rights are consistent with the Convention. In conclusion, the Employer members call on the Government to meaningfully respond to the Committee of Experts’ concerns and to continue its collaboration with the social partners and the ILO. It is the view of the Employer members that the Philippines can benefit from continued technical and other material assistance.

Worker member, Philippines – For the majority of Filipino workers, the promise of the Convention remains unfinished and frustratingly unfulfilled. The road to collective bargaining is long, winding and narrow, so narrow that obtaining the collective bargaining agreement often feels like passing through the eye of a needle. Collective bargaining remains tied to the employer–employee relationship, leaving millions of workers excluded through contractualization, subcontracting, platform work and other precarious arrangements. Nearly 18 million informal economy workers are excluded. For many public sector workers, collective bargaining remains more a promise than reality.

Nine years after ratifying the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), the Philippines has yet to enact an enabling law necessary for its full implementation. The journey begins with securing recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent through a certification election, after a simpler route of majority signature recognition was recently nullified. It continues through certification disputes, bargaining delays, bargaining deadlocks, assumption of jurisdiction orders, litigation and, in some cases, the dismissal, intimidation, threats, harassment, red-tagging and even arrest of union leaders themselves. In some cases, the journey is not merely difficult: it is close to impossible.

Philippine jurisprudence itself shows how workers may spend years and sometimes more than a decade simply trying to secure recognition and representation rights. The union in a major broadcasting company waited approximately 13 years before the Supreme Court finally affirmed the right to proceed with a certification election. In a rope company and a multinational soft drinks company, workers likewise spent four and five years respectively litigating issues relating to certification and bargaining representation before they could move forward. The Convention is about collective bargaining. Yet for Filipino workers, the struggles begin with securing recognition as their bargaining representative.

The numbers tell the story. As of the first quarter of 2026, there were 20,843 registered unions but only 1,331 collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and collective negotiation agreements (CNAs) covering 307,788 workers, just 1.4 per cent for the 31 million wage and salary workers and less than 1 per cent of the country’s total workforce. Organizing a trade union, dangerous and difficult as it already is, is no guarantee that workers would reap the benefits from a collective bargaining agreement. Laws, policies and practice continue to exclude millions from meaningful bargaining coverage. Collective bargaining is weakened not only by exclusion but also by excessive interventions in the bargaining process itself.

Governments should be referees, not substitute negotiators. Yet workers continue to face intervention by both the DOLE and other government agencies that affect the outcome of collective bargaining. One glaring example of overreach is the overuse and abuse of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under article 278 of the Labor Code to assume jurisdiction of actual collective industrial actions or brewing labour disputes as a result of CBA deadlock or unfair labour practice and union busting. Under the international labour standard, restrictions on collective individual action are generally justified only in essential services in the strict sense of the term – services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population.

However, the scope of industries indispensable to the national interest in the Philippines has expanded beyond those limits. Assumption orders had been issued in hotel, education, electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, beverage production, transportation and other sectors. As a result, bargaining disputes that should be settled at the negotiating table opened up at the Government’s desk. Assumption of jurisdiction impedes union power and effectively neutralizes the right to collective industrial actions of workers and enables state forces and private security to use violence to disperse striking workers. In a dispute involving a multinational soft drinks company, collective bargaining reached a deadlock but before workers could fully exercise their bargaining leverage, an assumption of jurisdiction order intervened. The collective industrial action stopped. The dispute moved to compulsory proceedings and collective bargaining ceased to be voluntary. The Convention promotes collective bargaining. It does not contemplate collective bargaining being replaced by compulsory arbitration at the first sign of deadlock. A similar concern exists in the electric power sector.

Workers in electric cooperatives continue to face interference arising from actions of national electrification administrations. NEA Memorandum No. 23-052 and all related policies subjected collective bargaining agreements to layers of review and approval, restricted provisions involving wages and benefits and effectively inserted third party oversight into matters that should be determined through negotiations between workers and management. Trade unions reported delays in the conclusion of collective bargaining agreements and obstacles to freely negotiated settlement. Although the NEA administrator reportedly committed in 2025 to withdraw the questioned policies, they have only been suspended. As long as they remain in place, their chilling effect on collective bargaining persists.

Significantly, even the NTIPC approved in principle a resolution calling for the total revocation of Memorandum Circular No. 2023-052, recognizing its incompatibility with free and voluntary collective bargaining. Yet despite this recognition, the Government continues to ask the Committee to defer scrutiny while the disputed policy technically remains in force, albeit suspended.

The Committee should likewise examine article 279 of the Labor Code and its chilling effect on collective bargaining. The concern is not theoretical. A recent example is the dispute involving a multinational electronics company where union leaders were illegally dismissed around the time of CBA negotiations. The union launched collective industrial action due to these determinations and the non-implementation of previously penned provisions of the CBA, and was issued assumption of jurisdiction. The union stood firm and it ended in victory for the workers. In a hotel chain, workers lost their jobs over a collective hair-grooming protest. In a local university, a delay of less than a day in returning to work cost union officers their employment and was considered as defiance of the assumption of jurisdiction.

The pattern is difficult to ignore: bargaining disputes, union leaders’ dismissals, workers are told they have the right to organize, to bargain and to collective industrial action, but exercising those rights can cost them their jobs. Many will choose silence over participation. Moreover, the practice of red-tagging, threats, surveillance and illegal arrests and detention continues. There were 69 cases of red-tagging, threats and surveillance in 2025 alone according to the Workers’ Rights Watch Report, victimizing 11,280 workers. There were seven cases of filing trumped-up charges, illegal arrests and detention, victimizing nine workers. There were at least six cases of union busting affecting 867 trade union leaders and key members and 11 cases of constructive or illegal dismissal affecting 377 workers who were organizing.

A right exercised under fear is not a right fully enjoyed. We respectfully call to: certify as urgent the passage of enabling law for Convention No. 151; align the Labor Code provisions on assumption of jurisdiction by certifying as urgent the passage of House Bill No. 90; repeal and substantially amend article 279 of the Labor Code to remove disproportionate penalties that shield collective bargaining; rescind all NEA policies that unduly interfere in collective bargaining in the electric power sector and ultimately review the NEA Charter; certify as urgent the security of tenure legislation in industrial relations reform measures that expand collective bargaining coverage; extend collective bargaining rights and protection to contractual, platform, informal economy, migrant, job order and contract of service workers; align laws, regulations and practices with the Convention and fully implement the recommendations of the ILO High-Level Tripartite Missions and ILO supervisory bodies; abolish and defund the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and redirect resources toward labour inspection, social dialogue and protection of freedom of association and collective bargaining. For some workers, the price of collective bargaining has been their employment. For others, it has been their freedom. For far too many trade unionists, it has been their lives.

Employer member, Philippines – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), the recognized representative of Philippine employers in the ILO. We respectfully submit that the inclusion of the Philippines on the short list of cases under the Convention does not fully reflect the significant progress achieved by the Government and the social partners in recent years. The Philippines has not stood still. Employers, workers and the Government have invested substantial effort in responding to concerns raised by the ILO supervisory bodies. The record before the Committee demonstrates continued engagement, meaningful reforms, strengthened institutions and progress in the promotion of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Allow me to highlight three developments that demonstrate the country’s commitment to the principles embodied in the Convention. First, the Philippines has undertaken important institutional and policy reforms to strengthen the protection of workers’ rights and improve accountability. A major development has been the strengthening of national mechanisms addressing allegations involving freedom of association and trade union rights. This effort was reinforced through Executive Order No. 23 which strengthened the Inter-agency Committee on Freedom of Association and the Protection of the Right to Organize. The mechanism enhances coordination among agencies responsible for labour, justice, law enforcement and human rights matters and provides a structured process for addressing concerns and improving accountability.

The Government has likewise adopted the 2024 Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, modernizing procedures relating to collective negotiations, representation and dispute resolution in the public sector. The Government has also continued to engage constructively with the ILO supervisory system and has consistently provided information requested by the Committee of Experts regarding measures taken to address outstanding concerns. These actions demonstrate the willingness to strengthen institutions and improve compliance through practical reforms.

Second, these institutional reforms have been accompanied by a renewed commitment to social dialogue. Following the visit of the ILO High-Level Tripartite Mission in January 2023, an important process of engagement produced tangible results. One of the most significant outcomes was the Leaders’ Forum statement jointly signed by employer and worker leaders. The statement reflected a shared commitment to promote freedom of association, strengthen social dialogue and address concerns through constructive engagement. The Leaders’ Forum statement was complemented by the freedom of association road map developed through consultations among employers, workers and the Government together. These initiatives provide a practical framework for strengthening institutions and resolving concerns through dialogue rather than confrontation.

The NTIPC has likewise been revitalized providing an important venue through which employers, workers and the Government can discuss labour relations issues and develop consensus-based solutions. Another significant milestone was the high-level dialogue convened by the Presidential Executive Secretary involving senior Government officials, employer representatives and trade union leaders. This demonstrated commitment at the highest levels of the Government to strengthening confidence in the country’s industrial relations system. Taken together, these initiatives represent a serious effort to rebuild trust, deepen dialogue and strengthen cooperation among the social partners.

Third, these reforms and dialogue mechanisms are producing measurable results. Philippine employers note that many allegations repeatedly cited in discussions concerning the Philippines relate to events that occurred several years ago. Since then, extensive information has been provided by the Government and significant efforts have been undertaken to address these concerns raised by the supervisory bodies. Progress in collective bargaining continues. As of June 2025, there were 1,278 registered CBAs covering more than 313,000 workers in the private sector with additional agreements covering workers in electric cooperatives, most notably the number of registered agreements increased by approximately 7.3 per cent compared with the previous year. These figures represent real workers benefiting from collective bargaining and real enterprises participating in social dialogue. They demonstrate that collective bargaining remains active and continues to expand. While challenges remain, particularly given the size of the informal economy and the prevalence of micro and small enterprises, the overall trajectory is moving in a positive direction.

When we review the evidence objectively, three achievements stand out. First, the strengthening of accountability and coordination mechanisms through Executive Order No. 23 and related reforms. Second, the development of a reform agenda through the Leaders’ Forum statement, the freedom of association road map and the revitalization of the NTIPC. Third, the continued growth of collective bargaining coverage alongside sustained engagement with the ILO supervisory process. These are not characteristics of a country refusing to engage with international labour standards. Rather, they are the characteristics of a country actively working to address concerns through dialogue, cooperation and institutional reform. For this reason, Philippine employers respectfully submit that the progress achieved by the Philippines merits recognition within the Committee’s assessment. Continued encouragement of these efforts supported by technical assistance and constructive engagement will contribute more effectively to the realization of the Convention than a focus on past allegations alone.

We therefore respectfully request that the ILO continue providing technical assistance to support ongoing reforms. Technical cooperation, capacity-building and continued engagement with the social partners will do far more to advance freedom of association and collective bargaining than repeated scrutiny alone. We likewise encourage a constructive and evidence-based consideration of the issues before the Committee consistent with the principles of fairness, objectivity and due process. The Philippines has chosen engagement over confrontation, reform over complacency and dialogue over division. The Philippines does not seek exemption from scrutiny. It seeks recognition of progress and encouragement for continued reform and support for the constructive efforts already being undertaken by the Government, employers and workers alike. Philippine employers therefore respectfully urge the Committee to acknowledge the substantial progress achieved, encourage the continuation of ongoing reforms, support enhanced technical cooperation and reinforce the positive trajectory that is already under way. By supporting continued engagement and constructive tripartite action, the Committee can make its most meaningful contribution to further realization of freedom of association and collective bargaining in the Philippines.

Government member, Cyprus – I speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, the candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, as well as the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, which align themselves with this statement. First of all, we would like to express our solidarity to the people of the Philippines following the aftermath of the recent earthquake that hit southern Philippines. We are committed to the respect, protection and fulfilment of labour rights including the right to organize and to collective bargaining.

We promote universal ratification and effective implementation of fundamental ILO Conventions and support the ILO supervisory system in its crucial role of promoting and supervising the application of ratified standards. We recall that the Philippines ratified the Convention in 1953. We are concerned by the latest observation of the Committee of Experts regarding the application of this fundamental Convention. We note with concern the lack of detailed information provided by the Government on the allegations raised by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the observations of the 2018 report of the Committee of Experts, which concern alleged union-busting practices, blacklisting and anti-union dismissals and suspensions in three companies. We recall the Committee of Experts’ observations that despite measures taken by the Government, the latter needs to intensify its efforts to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention can effectively benefit from its guarantees including the right to collective bargaining.

We further call on the Government to engage in dialogue with the social partners to explore ways of operationalizing collective bargaining for self-employed workers and non-standard categories of workers including those working in the informal economy. We call on the Government to engage in consultations with the social partners concerned to explore ways that would allow all workers covered by the Convention, including public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State, to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. These should include negotiating wages, benefits, allowances and working time. We ask the Government to take the necessary measures to that effect. We welcome the increase in the number of collective agreements concluded.

Nevertheless, we are concerned that the number of workers covered by these agreements continues to be extremely low compared to the overall size of the working population in the country. We therefore call on the Government to continue taking all necessary legal and practical measures to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention. We will continue to follow the situation closely and remain committed to promoting the right to organize and to collective bargaining. In this regard, we invite the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO.

Government member, Brunei Darussalam – I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN recognizes that the Committee’s work remains relevant in providing guidance to countries to ensure full respect for fundamental principles and rights at work. We note the Philippines’ constructive and cooperative engagement with the ILO supervisory process, including timely submission of requested reports and information, particularly for the issues raised in the report of the Committee of Experts. On the issues addressed by the Committee of Experts, we note the concerns raised on the issue of collective bargaining in electric cooperatives and recognize the concrete actions taken by the Government to address the issue prior to this discussion. We recognize the importance of this sector to the Philippine economy and public interest. We, therefore, encourage the Government to continue engaging workers’ and employers’ organizations, as well as relevant regulatory agencies to work towards a workable solution that respects collective bargaining rights and public interest considerations, including the finalization of a manual on collective bargaining in electric cooperatives.

On assumption of jurisdiction, we note the diverse views and support continued discussions between the social partners and the Government in this regard. We also note the Philippines’ clarification that within its labour relations system, this mechanism is used exceptionally and with due regard to the specific nature of the case and impact on national interest.

On determination of bargaining representatives, we welcome the Government’s assurance that the recent ruling of the Court of Appeals will not diminish the right of workers to collective bargaining. We encourage the continued dialogue and consultation with the social partners to ensure that the process remains objective, impartial and supportive of workers’ right to collective bargaining.

On issues related to the scope and content of collective bargaining, both in the informal economy and the public sector, we note that the Convention allows flexibility in its application consistent with national conditions. In this regard, we encourage the Government and the social partners to work together constructively towards a way forward that takes into account both collective bargaining rights and the country’s socio-economic landscape.

We believe that the Government’s commitment to social dialogue has resulted in tangible results. In the past, the Committee examined the Philippines’ application of Convention No. 87. Since then, substantial progress has been made which the Committee of Experts also noted with interest in its report. ASEAN is confident that the Philippines, in consultation with the social partners, can achieve similar results in relation to Convention No. 98. Finally, we share the Government’s view that the present discussion should focus on matters addressed by the Committee of Experts’ report. This ensures a balanced discussion that is respectful of the time, mandate and resources of the Committee and remains consistent with the objective of the ILO supervisory mechanism.

Employer member, Malaysia – The Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) wishes to recognize the efforts of the Government to promote collective bargaining while taking into account national circumstances, public interest considerations and the specific characteristics of regulated sectors. The Convention promotes voluntary collective bargaining and constructive social dialogue. At the same time, its implementation must be assessed within national legal and institutional frameworks, particularly in sectors that provide essential services to the public. In this regard, we take note of the Government’s explanation concerning electric cooperatives. These entities are entrusted with ensuring reliable and affordable electricity services, particularly in rural and geographically isolated communities.

We understand that the measures adopted by the relevant authorities were intended to take into account social and economic considerations while safeguarding the operational and financial viability of these cooperatives and the continuity of electricity services. We also note that the Government has addressed the concerns raised through dialogue and consultation. The DOLE convened discussions involving the NEA, the trade union POWER-SENTRO and other stakeholders and the contested issuance has been suspended pending further consultations. This demonstrates a commitment to tripartism and the use of an established mechanism to address differences constructively. We further welcome the ongoing efforts to develop a collective bargaining manual for the power sector and the proposal to establish a national tripartite council for electric cooperatives. This initiative seeks to promote clarity, consistency and cooperation among the parties concerned and provide a framework for addressing issues through dialogue.

Taken together, these developments demonstrate that domestic institutions are functioning and that concerns raised by the social partners are being addressed through consultation and engagement. They also reflect a willingness to pursue practical solutions that balance the interests of workers, employers, regulators and the communities served by electric cooperatives. The MEF therefore encourages the Philippines to continue its engagement with workers’ organizations and other stakeholders in the spirit of cooperation. We likewise encourage continued efforts to strengthen collective bargaining practices while recognizing the public interest, responsibility entrusted to electric cooperatives.

In this context, we encourage the Committee to adopt conclusions that support voluntary collective bargaining, recognize national conditions and allow ongoing domestic processes to continue producing practical and sustainable results consistent with the objectives of the Convention.

Worker member, Italy – I am speaking on behalf of the Italian Workers’ delegates. We wish to express our serious concern at the persistent non-observance of the Convention by the Philippines.

Firstly, we wish to draw the Committee’s attention to the continued misuse of the “admission of jurisdiction” mechanism. The power of admission of jurisdiction – a remnant of the authoritarian system of labour relations imposed during the Marcos dictatorship of the 1970s – grants the Executive Branch extraordinary powers to suspend strikes, order a return to work and, in practice, determine the outcome of labour disputes.

These powers have been repeatedly criticized by the ILO supervisory bodies as being incompatible with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining when applied beyond genuinely essential services.

In response to repeated observations by the ILO, the Aquino Government issued Department Order (DO) 40-H-13 of 2013, which expressly sought to delimit the scope of industries considered indispensable to the national interest and to bring practices into line with international labour standards. This reform represented the Government’s own acknowledgement that the unrestricted use of the power of admission of jurisdiction was problematic and required clear limits.

However, despite the department order being in force, the Department of Labor continues to invoke the admission of competence in sectors that clearly fall outside the strict definition set out in the order and in ILO jurisprudence.

The issue before the Committee is no longer merely one of non-compliance with the Convention; it is also a matter of the Government disregarding the very standards it adopted in response to previous criticisms by the ILO.

The Government acknowledges that these powers have been exercised across a wide range of sectors under the expansive and vague concept of national interest. This approach is incompatible with the established principles of the ILO, according to which restrictions on the right to industrial action must be limited to services whose disruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of all or part of the population.

The consequences are far-reaching. When employers know that the State may intervene at any stage to suspend or neutralize the right to industrial action, the incentives for genuine collective bargaining are weakened, and negotiations cease to be free and voluntary, becoming instead dependent on administrative intervention.

We also note persistent concerns regarding trade union recognition procedures, restrictions affecting workers in electricity cooperatives, and the delayed application of Convention No. 151 in the public sector. These issues underscore the need for comprehensive reforms to strengthen collective bargaining rights in the Philippines.

We therefore urge the Committee to call upon the Government to put an end to the misuse of admission of jurisdiction, to faithfully implement Departmental Order 40-H-13, to strictly limit any intervention to genuinely essential services in accordance with ILO principles, and to undertake the necessary reforms to ensure full compliance with Conventions Nos 98 and 151.

Employer member, Indonesia – The Employers’ Association of Indonesia (APINDO) wishes to emphasize the importance of the rule of law in the application of the Convention. Effective industrial relations systems depend not only on the recognition of rights but also on the institutions capable of interpreting, implementing and enforcing those rights in a predictable and lawful manner. In this regard, the information provided by the Government demonstrates that its legal and institutional mechanisms are functioning. Courts have reviewed measures affecting labour relations, competent authorities have complied with judicial decisions and the Government has taken steps to ensure that labour relations continue to operate within the framework established by law. We further note that in complying with the court’s ruling, the Government took measures to preserve stability in existing or active bargaining relationships. This reflects an effort to uphold the rule of law while maintaining continuity and certainty for workers, employers and bargaining units. We also take note of the Government’s clarification that the court’s decision should not be interpreted as diminishing collective bargaining rights. Rather, it reaffirmed the process established under the Labor Code for determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent through certification elections. Certification elections remain an important democratic mechanism in labour relations. Through this process, workers are able to choose their bargaining representative by secret ballot under the supervision of the DOLE, supported by safeguards intended to protect workers’ freedom of choice. These developments demonstrate that concerns arising within the labour relations system can be addressed through established legal and institutional processes. Indonesian employers therefore encourage the Committee to recognize these institutional responses and support continued implementation through social dialogue and lawful procedures.

With respect to the issue of assumption of jurisdiction, we note the Government’s explanation that this is an exceptional mechanism intended to preserve industrial peace and prevent labour disputes from escalating in industries affecting the national interest.

We encourage the Committee to examine this matter carefully and within the proper scope of the Convention. It is important to recognize that the Government may, in exceptional circumstances, face the responsibility of balancing the protection of workers’ rights with broader public interests and the need to maintain social and economic stability. In our view, conclusions should recognize both objectives: the promotion of collective bargaining and workers’ rights, on the one hand, and the legitimate role of States in safeguarding industrial peace and public welfare in exceptional situations, on the other.

Worker member, France – In the Philippines, millions of workers are still unable to fully exercise their right to collective bargaining. Out of more than 50 million workers, only 307,788 are covered by collective agreements, representing barely 1 per cent of the workforce. For them, the agreement remains an unfulfilled promise.

I shall begin by referring to the exclusion of prison guards, prison staff and firefighters, who do not perform duties directly related to national security. These workers remain deprived of the right to organize and to bargain collectively, despite the ratification of Convention No. 151.

In theory, Ministerial Order No. 174 of 2017 stipulates that workers supplied by employment agencies or labour cooperatives are entitled to the same rights as workers directly employed by the user undertaking.

In practice, however, these rights often exist only on paper. Workers employed under subcontracting arrangements face precarious working conditions, short-term contracts and constant job insecurity. A worker who does not know whether they will still have a job the following month is unlikely to be able to negotiate better wages for the coming year. The problem is exacerbated by the growing use of bogus self-employment, particularly in the agriculture, food production, transport and delivery services sectors.

Given that the right to collective bargaining, as provided for by the Philippine legislation, is protected only for workers in formal employment relationships, workers in disguised employment are classified as self-employed contractors – simply because they own a motorbike, a bicycle or a vehicle. Yet their work is supervised, monitored and organized by the platform or company that employs them. It is the company that owns the algorithm, controls the routes, the customers, the ratings and, ultimately, the worker’s livelihood. Despite a series of court rulings recognising the employee status of cycle couriers, labour legislation in the Philippines remains powerless in the face of the widespread practice of disguised employment in the rapidly expanding platform economy sector.

Finally, trade unions campaigning for the right to collective bargaining continue to be exposed to “red-tagging” – the practice of publicly linking trade unionists to subversive or insurgent groups. A right exercised in fear is not a right fully exercised.

Workers should not have to choose between keeping their jobs and asserting their rights. Collective bargaining cannot flourish where trade union leaders are dismissed, where bargaining units disappear overnight, where workers are portrayed as independent contractors, or where fear hangs over every attempt at unionization.

Employer member, Cambodia – The Cambodian Federation of Employers and Business Associations (CAMFEBA) supports a constructive and forward-looking approach in this case concerning the Philippines under the Convention. The discussion before the Committee highlights the practical challenges involved in extending collective bargaining opportunities to all workers. These include questions relating to public sector bargaining, non-standard forms of employment and workers in the informal economy. We note that the Committee of Experts has encouraged the Government to continue dialogue with the social partners, with the support of technical assistance from the Office, to explore practical ways of extending collective bargaining opportunities to workers in the informal economy and those in non-standard forms of employment.

We also note the Committee of Experts’ encouragement for continued consultations on public sector bargaining. In reality, public administration often involves specific legal, constitutional and budgetary considerations. While these should not prevent meaningful dialogue, they may require solutions that take account of national circumstances and legal frameworks. In this regard, technical assistance can play an important role in helping governments and social partners identify practical approaches that advance the objectives of the Convention while remaining consistent with domestic law. We therefore encourage continued engagement among the Government, employers, workers and the Office.

The Committee of Experts has also considered allegations concerning anti-union discrimination, interference, harassment and violence. We fully agree that such allegations must be treated seriously and investigated promptly. Respect for the freedoms of association and collective bargaining requires an environment in which rights can be exercised free from intimidation and unlawful interference. At the same time, effective action depends on establishing the relevant facts and ensuring due process. Distinguishing between established violations, pending cases and allegations that remain under investigation is important for both accountability and fairness.

Where allegations involve threats, violence or other criminal acts, responses often require coordination among labour authorities, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and other competent institutions. These issues extend beyond labour administration alone and require a coordinated approach. CAMFEBA therefore encourages the promotion of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), continued social dialogue, technical cooperation and institutional building as the most constructive means of advancing the objectives of the Convention. We believe that sustained engagement among the Government, workers, employers and the Office offers the best path toward practical solutions, strong labour relations and the effective implementation of the Convention.

Worker member, Indonesia – The Philippines has long recognized the right of Government employees to form and join unions. This is an important achievement and deserves recognition. However, the Convention is not only about the existence of unions. It is about promoting voluntary collective bargaining as a means of determining terms and conditions of employment.

In the Philippine public sector, significant challenges remain. Executive Order No. 180 recognizes the right to organize but limits collective negotiations to matters not otherwise fixed by law. As a result, key issues such as wages, allowances and many economic benefits remain outside meaningful bargaining. The Committee of Experts has consistently emphasized that workers covered by the Convention should be able to negotiate terms and conditions of employment including wages, benefits, allowances and working time. This concern is particularly relevant given the composition of the public workforce.

Government data indicate that the public sector employs around 2.1 million workers, including approximately 920,000 job order and contract of service workers. These workers perform regular and essential public functions. They support local government services, hospitals, educational institutions, government programmes and administrative operations. Yet many remain excluded from a collective bargaining mechanism because they are not considered government employees for the purposes of public sector labour relations. This means that nearly 1 million workers who help deliver public services have no effective access to collective bargaining.

The Committee may also wish to consider the broad exclusion under Executive Order No. 180. While international labour standards recognize that public servants engaged in the administration of the State may be treated differently, this exception should remain limited. Teachers, nurses, university personnel, local government workers and other public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State should not be deprived of meaningful collective bargaining rights.

The Philippines has made important progress in recognizing public sector unions and establishing collective negotiation mechanisms. These efforts deserve acknowledgement. However, the continued exclusion of a large segment of the public workforce and the limited scope of negotiable matters demonstrate that further reforms are necessary to fully realize the objectives of the Convention.

We therefore encourage the Government, in consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to review existing laws and practices affecting collective bargaining in the public sector including the situation of job order and contract of service workers. A worker who delivers public services should not lose their right to a meaningful voice simply because the employer is the State.

Worker member, Belgium – I am speaking on behalf of the Belgian and Dutch workers and the workers of the Nordic countries. Any assessment of the situation in the Philippines in light of the Convention cannot ignore the enormous problem of contract work. The rapid expansion of contract work and other forms of precarious employment has, in effect, made collective bargaining inaccessible to millions of workers. For many of them, the right to collective bargaining exists in law, but vanishes at the factory gates.

Despite the scale of the problem, the Government does not provide comprehensive statistics on the extent and forms of contract work. An estimate dating from March 2026 suggests that between 60 and 70 per cent of the country’s 31.3 million employees are on multi-party employment contracts. In some sectors, regular employment has become the exception. In fruit processing plants, for example, the ratio of regular workers to contract workers is said to have dropped from 1 to 4 in 2016 to around 1 to 14 today.

In principle, Order No. 174 of 2017 issued by the Department of Labor and Employment grants contract workers the same rights as regular workers, including the right to organize and to collective bargaining. In practice, however, workers are often forced to negotiate with recruitment agencies, cooperatives or intermediaries rather than with the main company that controls the workplace and benefits from their labour. Thus, the real decision-maker remains behind the scenes.

The widespread use of short-term, successive contracts creates insecurity and discourages workers from joining trade unions or asserting their rights. Workers who fear losing their jobs tomorrow are, quite rightly, reluctant to negotiate better conditions today.

This situation is all the more worrying given that the Labor Code already provides for a solution: article 106 expressly empowers the Minister of Labour to restrict or prohibit contract work in order to protect workers’ rights. Unfortunately, however, this power remains largely underused.

Even when labour inspections conclude that workers are regular employees, their findings are not always upheld. In Palawan, for example, the DOLE regional authorities ruled that around 600 workers at a major engineering firm were regular employees. However, this decision was overturned on appeal by the Secretary’s office. Similar reversals have been reported in the textile industry, affecting hundreds of workers. Such outcomes inevitably undermine confidence in labour inspection and enforcement mechanisms.

The Convention is not merely intended to enable workers to form trade unions. It aims to ensure that they have a legitimate negotiating partner, adequate security of employment and a legal framework that encourages collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining cannot thrive if workers are treated as temporary, disposable or invisible employees. A worker whose contract expires after a few months is unlikely to negotiate a better future; more often than not, they are negotiating simply to keep their job for the next day.

Worker member, Republic of Korea – Let me begin by repeating the figures. Out of an economically active population of 51.65 million, only 308,956 workers – less than 1 per cent – are covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) or collective negotiation agreements (CNAs). This is the reality behind today’s case. Under the Convention, the central obligation of the Government is to facilitate collective bargaining. Article 4 requires it to actively encourage and promote bargaining, not merely to permit it.

In its written information, the Government tells the Committee that the invalidation of Department Order (DO) 40-J, the procedure for certifying unions as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA), changed nothing of substance, and that collective bargaining rights remain fully respected.

The procedure in question allowed a union that had already proven its majority, a single union organizing most of the workers in an establishment, to be recognized as the bargaining agent and to begin bargaining without delay. This was exactly the facilitation that Article 4 of the Convention requires. When an employer had it struck down in court, for not being expressly written into the statute, the Government had two proper responses: to defend the mechanism before the Supreme Court, or to legislate and fill the gap. It did neither. Instead, it discontinued DO 40-J for all workers. The Government abandoned its obligation under the Convention.

The Committee of Experts asked the Government to explain the practical impact of this change. Its written information does not answer. Let me answer, with two cases.

In the first, delivery workers at a platform company in the Cavite region had gathered majority signatures and sought recognition directly. When DO 40-J was struck down, their request became a full certification election. That delay is not harmless: workers are dismissed, reclassified or discouraged before bargaining can begin.

In the second, at another platform company, a union of riders had been certified as the bargaining agent. Yet the company dismissed its president and reclassified the riders as independent contractors. When the labour commission ordered 131 of them reinstated, the company refused to reinstate them or to bargain, claiming no bargaining unit remained. The certified unit was dismantled before bargaining ever began. This is the practical impact. The right to bargain collectively was recognized in form and defeated in fact.

In conclusion, the Korean workers urge the Government to continue to make an expedited process for certification available to unions not involved in the case decided by the Court of Appeals and to secure a legislative measure which allows for expedited certification of unions with clear majority status.

Worker member, Fiji – I can say that the examination of the Philippines under the Convention would be incomplete without addressing the continuing interference of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) in collective bargaining through NEA Memorandum Circular No. 2023-052, which subjected collective bargaining agreements to NEA review and approval. This effectively inserted a third party into what should be a bipartite process between workers and management.

For more than a decade, workers’ organizations have raised concerns before the ILO regarding restrictions affecting approximately 20,000 workers in 120 electric cooperatives serving some 15 million member-consumer households. These concerns go to the very heart of the Convention: the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining.

The Committee of Experts has already observed that third-party intervention in collective bargaining substantially alters its bipartite character and is not conducive to voluntary collective bargaining. Yet the NEA continues to exert influence over labour relations in the sector.

The NEA exercises extensive control and authority over electric cooperatives. It is the registrar, bank, supervisor and regulator of electric cooperatives. The NEA, rather than the member-consumers of the cooperative, is fully empowered to disqualify, suspend, remove or replace directors and officers. Member-consumers, who should be the true owners of the cooperative, do not exercise meaningful control over operations, do not receive dividends and possess no true ownership rights beyond electing board members.

Revocation or suspension of NEA MC 2025-052 is not sufficient to address the lack of freedom of association and collective bargaining in electric cooperatives. Even if the Government says that it has currently suspended MC 2025-052, the practical effect is that, without provision for observing the Labor Code framework in CBAs, it will restore MC 2014-003, which has the same effect as MC 2025-052. As long as there is no NEA issuance on the claimed implementation of the Labor Code framework in electric cooperatives, violation of Article 4 of the Convention will persist, and CBAs in electric cooperatives will only be just for show.

We note that the tripartite has reportedly supported the total revocation of MC 2025-052. But we stress that the tripartite also pushed for the committed DOLE-NEA issuance on the full observance of freedom of association and collective bargaining in electric cooperatives.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) – The Committee of Experts repeatedly emphasized that restrictions on industrial action in the name of the national interest must be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services whose interruption will endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

We wish to address the growing pattern which has emerged whereby employers, particularly large multinational corporations, are able to secure administrative intervention from the DOLE through the Secretary of Labor and Employment’s assumption of jurisdiction powers whenever collective bargaining negotiations reach a deadlock. The following case demonstrates how these powers are being used in practice.

On 26 September 2024, a very big company, which calls itself “the leading manufacturer and supplier of carbonated and non-alcoholic beverages”, filed a petition of assumption of jurisdiction over two disputes at their transport operations premises in Greater Manila and South Luzon. Following prolonged collective bargaining negotiations and failed mediation, trade unions representing delivery and logistics workers sought to address discriminatory treatment in health, accident insurance and pension benefits.

Rather than engage in meaningful negotiations, the management of this company allowed bargaining to deadlock and, once workers voted in favour of industrial action in accordance with the law, petitioned the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. As a result, the trade unions were prevented from exercising their collective power and were ultimately compelled to abandon their demands. In 2025, three additional trade unions representing workers of the same “world leading brown soda company” in Isabela and Bulacan experienced the same pattern.

The interventions of the Secretary of Labor and Employment were based on the employer’s assertion that distribution of carbonated soft drinks was indispensable to the national interest. This classification effectively transformed an ordinary collective bargaining dispute into a matter of state intervention and deprived workers of the necessary leverage for genuine collective bargaining.

These cases reveal a structural problem. Employers have come to regard the assumption of jurisdiction as a predictable mechanism through which they can avoid the economic consequences of failed bargaining and they have diminished incentives to negotiate in good faith.

Collective bargaining cannot be considered voluntary where the State intervenes to suspend industrial action. We call on the Government to abandon this practice and reconstruct in practice the fundamental workers’ rights under the Convention.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – First of all, we would like to emphasize that, by ratifying Convention No. 151, the Philippines has taken an important step towards granting collective bargaining rights to public sector workers. This deserves recognition.

However, problems still remain, and I would like to mention some of them. According to Executive Decree No. 180, only terms and conditions that are not fixed by law may be negotiated. Currently, wages, benefits, allowances, assignments and working hours are excluded from negotiations. These are not minor omissions; pay and working hours are undoubtedly the most important issues for workers, as they form the basis of any fair collective agreement, directly affecting their livelihood, job satisfaction and general well-being. Although the Government informed the Committee of Experts that it remains open to exploring alternative mechanisms to collective bargaining on pay, no consultations on this matter have yet taken place.

The same legislation continues to prevent firefighters, prison guards and subcontracted workers in the public sector from benefiting from collective bargaining. The jurisprudence of the ILO supervisory bodies clearly establishes that the duties of these categories of workers do not justify their exclusion from the application of the Convention.

The procedure for certifying the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) remains a major obstacle. In addition to requiring an absolute majority to obtain this certification, the differing definitions of bargaining units across the various government structures represent another significant barrier for trade unions. For example, in the basic education sector, which employs more than 900,000 teachers, a regional office is considered an organizational unit. However, each region has between 20,000 and 95,000 state school teachers. Under current guidelines, a trade union requires the support of 10 per cent of the employees in that unit. For state school teachers, this translates into an exceptionally high threshold of between 2,000 and 9,000 members just to initiate negotiations.

Community health workers, mostly women on low incomes, are the backbone of primary healthcare in the Philippines. By the end of 2025, there were more than 270,000 of them working in the country’s 26,000 health centres, providing essential services in remote and marginalized areas. Despite their indispensable role, Act No. 7883 classifies these workers as volunteers, denying them formal employment status, fixed wages and social protection; consequently, they are unable to bargain collectively. Their monthly allowances, which range from around US$6 to an average US$51, are well below the minimum wage. Furthermore, the majority receive no risk allowances, benefits or transport allowances, leaving them undervalued and vulnerable despite their contribution.

We therefore urge the Government to address these issues and ensure that both law and practice comply with the Convention.

Government representative – We respectfully request the Committee’s indulgence to allow the Government to respond and clarify the matters raised, point-by-point.

The Government recognizes the close relationship between Conventions Nos 87 and 98. We also fully respect the rights of workers’ organizations to raise concerns before the ILO supervisory bodies.

We note the following interventions referring to observations closely related to Convention No. 87, particularly the Workers’ Rights Watch Report mentioning the recommendations of the ILO High-Level Tripartite Mission. This refers to the:

• alleged red-tagging, threats, and surveillance of union workers;
• alleged illegal detention and trumped-up charges against union workers;
• call for the abolition and defunding of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC).

These concerns relate to Convention No. 87. In September 2025, the Government submitted reports on the progress of these recommendations, including the implementation of the tripartite road map on freedom of association. As there is a tripartite understanding that the road map is a living document, the Government respectfully submits that the issues raised concerning Convention No. 87 can be addressed within this framework and through existing tripartite and bipartite social dialogue processes.

General allegations of violations, union busting and unfair labour practice are concerns that can be more effectively addressed when they are supported by specific facts and raised at the earliest opportunity before domestic mechanisms. This does not mean that the Government disregards the concerns raised. On the contrary, where specific cases have been identified, they have either been acted upon or remain subject to available administrative and judicial remedies.

In the informal economy and non-standard forms of work, we respectfully reiterate that the issue is not the absence of legal avenues for organization and representation but the need to develop mechanisms suited to informal work. Workers in the informal economy may form associations and negotiate with appropriate authorities for mutual aid and protection. The issues on the platform economy are valid and a global concern. This is the precise reason why the Philippines is actively participating in the standard-setting discussions and awaits the results of the negotiations on the proposed Convention complemented by a Recommendation.

On the right to bargaining in the public sector, we wish to inform the Committee that there are registered organizations in the Bureau of Fire Protection and the Bureau of Corrections and these organizations have existing collective negotiation agreements (CNAs). There are also CNAs covering civilians or non-uniformed employees of the National Police Commission, the Department of National Defense, the Philippine Army and the Philippine Coast Guard.

On the limitations in the contents of collective bargaining in the public sector, the Government respectfully submits that this matter is governed by the Constitution. Under the Constitution, no public funds may be paid except pursuant to an appropriation made by law. This does not diminish collective negotiation in the public sector. Rather, it ensures that such negotiation remains consistent with public accountability, fiscal responsibility and the lawful use of public funds as directed by the Constitution.

On the issue of electric cooperatives, we recall the guidance of the Committee of Experts in the 2012 General Survey that public interest may be taken into account in the bargaining process. The Government emphasizes that electric cooperatives are public utilities and they are engaged in a service imbued with public interest. Electricity in the Philippines remains among the most expensive in Southeast Asia. As a developing country, uninterrupted and affordable electricity is essential, particularly in rural and geographically isolated communities. For these reasons, electric cooperatives are subject to state regulation.

As I have mentioned in my opening, the action of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) was prompted by the need to correct collective bargaining practices that negatively affected the viability of several electric cooperatives. Nonetheless, through social dialogue, progress has been made toward finding a workable bargaining framework that respects the workers’ right to bargain collectively, on the one hand, and the public interest, on the other.

On the removal of sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) certification under DO 40-J, we need to emphasize that it was not revoked unilaterally by the Government but was made in compliance with the decision of the judiciary.

The Committee of Experts itself recognizes that both compulsory and voluntary recognition systems are acceptable, and that a compulsory recognition system is not by itself inconsistent with the Convention. In the Philippine jurisdiction, a certification election is the most democratic way for the workers to choose their representatives. When filed in unorganized establishments, it is automatic and is not subject to appeal. Nonetheless, as I have mentioned in my opening statement, we remain committed to working with the social partners in monitoring the impact of the court’s decision and in formulating a more expedited certification system in unorganized establishments.

On the specific cases mentioned by the Worker members involving alleged delays, the Government acknowledges the concern on the duration of arbitration proceedings. At the same time, labour arbitration must observe due process, including proper notice, opportunity to be heard, submission of evidence, and reasoned adjudication. Some cases take longer because of postponements, settlement efforts, motions and appeals. The Government continues to improve case management and disposition of labour cases but speed must be balanced with fairness, due process, and the enforceability of decisions.

On the alleged decrease in collective bargaining coverage, this is not a challenge unique to the Philippines. Globally, collective bargaining coverage and union density have been under pressure due to informality and non-standard work. In its 2025 and 2026 reports, the ITUC Global Rights Index itself acknowledges that this is a concern in 121 countries. In the Philippines, the purported declining collective bargaining coverage does not arise from a legal framework that restricts collective bargaining. In fact, the existing framework recognizes and protects this right. The Government is prepared to build on this foundation with the social partners to address gaps in practice.

On the issue of compulsory arbitration, called in the Philippines “assumption of jurisdiction”, we submit that we have already explained, in our response dated 14 May 2026, why it is not inconsistent with freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining and how this authority is intended to protect workers, employers and the general public.

As emphasized in that report, the power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction remains the exception rather than the rule. We have presented statistics to support this, including cases where trade unions themselves invoked the Secretary’s authority in industries not traditionally classified as indispensable to the national interest. For example, one case involving a bus company and two cases involving banana-exporting companies. In these cases, the trade unions concerned cited as reasons the socio-economic impact of the labour disputes on the national economy, trade relations and government revenues. As the numbers demonstrate, the exercise of the power to assume jurisdiction is not automatic but guided by the imperatives of preserving employment and protecting public welfare.

May we also clarify that “assumption of jurisdiction” can only be invoked in three cases: (i) upon mutual agreement of both parties; (ii) motu proprio, after a conference; or (iii) upon petition or request by either party, also after a conference. Finally, this power is always subject to judicial review.

The Government notes the concern regarding possible legislative measures, including the law implementing Convention No. 151. We respectfully emphasize that legislation follows a constitutional process and requires deliberations by the Congress, informed by national conditions and tripartite consultations. The Government remains open to working with the Congress and of course the social partners on proposals consistent with the Constitution, national law and practice, as well as the Convention.

The Government receives these concerns in the constructive spirit of the ILO supervisory mechanism and remains prepared to clarify, validate and act on concrete actions. At the same time, we respectfully emphasize that meaningful social dialogue cannot rest on government action alone. It requires the cooperation of all stakeholders concerned and must be grounded in mutual trust, respect, and a shared commitment to resolve issues through established processes. In that regard, the Government supports an action-oriented conclusion that is based on factual submissions pertaining only to issues related to the Convention.

Finally, as the Committee carries out its important work on behalf of workers globally, attention should also reach workers whose situations remain less visible and who may lack the same opportunities to bring their concerns before international mechanisms.

Employer members – As we conclude, the Employer members once more stress that any law or practice that infringes on workers’ or employers’ organizations under the Convention is unacceptable.

While noting that the interventions on this case may have strayed onto matters not addressed in or relevant to the Convention, such as workers’ rights to strike or collective action, we wish to reiterate that this matter is solely about the implementation of Convention No. 98 by the Philippines in law and in practice, nothing else.

To ensure full compliance with the Convention, Employer members request the Government to:

• ensure full respect of the rights and freedoms of workers and employers in the Convention;
• continue cooperating with the ILO and most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to ensure the full application of the Convention in law and practice;
• provide information on concrete measures taken in this respect, including the development and reporting on any progress.

We trust that the Government will implement these recommendations in a timely manner to achieve full compliance with the Convention both in law and practice.

Worker members – The Worker members note that, despite sustained comments from the Committee of Experts over many years, important gaps remain between the requirements of the Convention and the situation of collective bargaining in the Philippines, in both law and practice. These gaps affect workers across a broad range of sectors and indicate that the difficulties are not limited to isolated areas but extend across the labour market.

We recall that Article 4 of the Convention places a clear obligation on Member States to establish and promote effective procedures for voluntary bargaining between workers’ and employers’ organizations, aimed at regulating employment conditions through collective agreements. This obligation requires a legal and institutional framework that enables all workers covered by the Convention to effectively exercise their right to collective bargaining.

In this respect, the Worker members remain seriously concerned that a wide range of workers continues to be excluded from collective bargaining. These exclusions affect workers in public services such as prison staff and firefighters, as well as those in outsourced, temporary, part-time and other non-standard forms of employment, alongside agricultural, domestic, migrant and self-employed workers.

The Worker members recall that such exclusions are incompatible with the Convention which applies to all workers in the private sector, regardless of their employment or residency status, and guarantees the right to collective bargaining to all public servants not engaged in the administration of the State.

In this regard, the Worker members must reiterate, for the benefit of all members of the Committee, that both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association have systematically affirmed that the Convention provides for exceptions to its personal scope of application only with respect to the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State. The Convention therefore applies to all other workers, including self-employed workers.

On an additional note, we observe with concern the continued expansion of subcontracting practices in the Philippines. The Worker members consider that, when such arrangements are misused, they can significantly weaken collective representation by dispersing workers across multiple contractual relationships and undermining bargaining capacity. This is not a peripheral concern, but one that goes to the heart of the effectiveness of collective bargaining systems.

With respect to certification procedures in unorganized establishments, we take note of the recent judicial clarification concerning DO 40-J and the return to certification elections, as provided under the Labor Code. The Worker members remain concerned that the procedure does not provide sufficient guarantees against undue delays, interference, administrative barriers or procedural uncertainty that may undermine the recognition of trade unions as bargaining agents.

We remain concerned that collective bargaining in the public sector continues to exclude compensation and remains limited to matters not fixed by legislation. While the Government refers to established practice and the possibility to explore alternative mechanisms to collective bargaining, the Worker members recall that such arrangements are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention. Workers covered by the Convention must be able to negotiate essential terms and conditions of employment, including wages. Without this possibility, the substance of collective bargaining is significantly reduced.

The situation in the electricity sector further illustrates these concerns. While we acknowledge the reported suspension of the regulation establishing multi-stakeholder involvement in collective bargaining and the ongoing discussions on a new tripartite framework, the Worker members stress that any future arrangements must not recreate restrictions on the autonomy of the parties. Collective bargaining must remain a direct process between employers’ and workers’ organizations, conducted in good faith and free from external interference. The Government should therefore ensure that any new institutional framework fully respects the autonomy of the bargaining parties and is consistent with the requirements of the Convention.

Finally, while the increase in the number of collective agreements is noted, the Worker members observe that coverage remains limited in relation to the overall workforce. This suggests the continued existence of structural barriers to the free exercise of collective bargaining rights.

Taken together, the issues discussed in this case reveal persistent systemic challenges affecting the effectiveness and reach of collective bargaining in the Philippines.

The Worker members therefore request the Government to pursue concrete reforms, in close consultation with the social partners, to ensure full conformity with the Convention. We specifically request the Government to:

• amend its legislation without delay to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention can effectively enjoy and exercise their right to collective bargaining, in particular prison staff, fire service personnel, self-employed and temporary workers, outsourced or contract workers, non-resident workers, part-time workers, agricultural workers, domestic workers and migrant workers, as well as self-employed workers and non-standard categories of workers, including those working in the informal economy;
• adopt, in consultation with the social partners, procedures for determining collective bargaining agents in unorganized establishments with only one labour organization, together with safeguards to prevent undue interference, delays or obstacles to their effective recognition;
• ensure that all public sector workers not engaged in the administration of the State can negotiate wages and other terms and conditions of employment, as required by the Convention;
• address the misuse of subcontracting and non-standard employment that undermines workers’ capacity to organize and engage in collective bargaining;
• in consultation with the social partners, review arrangements in the electricity sector to ensure that any institutional framework fully respects the autonomy of the bargaining parties and promotes free and voluntary collective bargaining;
• in consultation with the social partners, review the relevant provisions of the Labor Code to remove undue obstacles to free and voluntary collective bargaining, including government interference; and
• adopt measures to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for collective bargaining to significantly expand collective bargaining coverage.

In light of the persistent gaps between the requirements of the Convention and the legal framework and practice in the Philippines, we invite the Government to accept a direct contacts mission.

Chairperson – The discussion of this case is now concluded. I thank the Government representative of Philippines and all the speakers who participated in the discussion.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral and written information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the long-standing gaps between the Convention and the legal framework and practice, and the absence of the Government’s comments on previously raised allegations of anti-union practices.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• pursue concrete labour law and institutional reforms to ensure full conformity with the Convention;
• investigate and provide information on the allegations concerning union-busting practices, blacklisting and anti-union dismissals and suspensions, and take the necessary measures to address them without delay;
• harmonize its legislation to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention can effectively benefit from its guarantees;
• ensure, in consultations with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, that national law addresses collective bargaining arrangements for unorganized establishments;
• ensure that all public sector workers covered by the Convention can negotiate their terms and conditions of employment and provide information on the impact of the 2024 Rules and Regulations on the promotion and development of collective bargaining in the public sector;
• in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, review arrangements in the electricity sector and pursue dialogue with the National Electrification Administration (NEA) and the social partners to remove undue restrictions on the scope and content of bargaining, fully respect the autonomy of the bargaining parties, and encourage and promote voluntary and good faith collective bargaining in line with the Convention;
• continue to take all the necessary legal and practical measures to promote the full development and utilization of machinery for collective bargaining to significantly expand collective bargaining coverage, and provide statistics on collective agreements concluded and workers covered.

The Committee invited the Government to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and to report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to implement these recommendations and the results achieved by 1 September 2026.

Government representative – The Government expresses its sincere appreciation to the Committee for its conclusions and recommendations. We also thank the Workers’ and Employers’ groups for their constructive interventions and for recognizing the actions already taken by the Government to give effect to the Convention.

On the first and third recommendations, we take note of the Committee’s guidance, and we are prepared to work with the social partners and the Office, particularly in exploring a workable model that can be adapted in the Philippine setting and that will make collective representation and bargaining more effective and relevant to the realities of workers in the informal economy and non-standard forms of work. The Government would welcome ILO technical assistance in this area.

On the investigation and request for information on alleged union-busting practices, among others, the Government respectfully recalls that the specific cases raised by the Workers’ group during the discussions last week have already been resolved through existing mechanisms. Should there be other incidents or unresolved concerns that have not yet been brought to the attention of the Department of Labor and Employment, we would welcome the submission of specific details.

On the determination of collective bargaining agents in unorganized establishments with only one labour organization, the Government notes the Committee’s recommendation. In this regard, the Government considers it important that any future framework should be shaped, first and foremost, by the social partners themselves. They are in the best position to assess what certification process would be most practical, efficient and responsive to their demands.

We therefore call on Philippine workers’ and employers’ groups, particularly through the Leaders’ Forum, to begin consultations within their respective sectors. The Government stands ready to assist the social partners in the process and hopes that the Committee can support this constructive approach.

On collective bargaining in the public sector, while we respect the Committee’s view, we respectfully emphasize that the Philippines recognizes the right of government employees to organize and negotiate under the applicable constitutional and statutory framework.

On collective bargaining in the electricity sector, the Government will continue engaging the social partners and regulatory agencies towards solutions that respect the autonomy of collective bargaining while also taking into account the public-interest nature of electric cooperatives and the need to protect essential public service delivery.

On the last recommendation, the Government will continue to ensure that the legal framework, mechanisms and remedies protect collective bargaining rights. Advancing this process requires the active engagement of social partners in constructive dialogue and good-faith negotiations aimed at achieving meaningful outcomes for all parties.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

The Committee notes the joint observations of the Alliance of Labor Association for Reform (ALARM), the Congress of Agricultural Industrial Labor Organization (CAILO), the Democratic Association of Labor Organization (DALO), the National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP), the National Federation of Labor Unions-KMU (NAFLU-KMU), the National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW), the Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Unions (PACIWU) and the United Sugar Farmers Organization (USFO) received on 12 November 2024, alleging deprivation of the right to assist and represent their members in labour cases filed before the National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC), as well as the Government’s reply thereto, indicating that the parties clarified the matter and reached an understanding to settle the issue after discussions in March and November 2025. The Committee further notes the observations of the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) received on 19 October 2023 and 3 September 2024, referring to matters examined by the Committee below, and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide detailed information on the allegations raised by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its 2018 observations, which concern alleged union-busting practices, blacklisting and anti-union dismissals and suspensions in three companies. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC allegations and, should this not yet be the case, to take the necessary measures to address them without delay.

Article 4 of the Convention. Categories of workers covered by collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, due to various legislative exclusions, certain categories of workers were not able to fully benefit from the right to collective bargaining (prison staff, fire service personnel, self-employed and temporary workers, outsourced or contract workers, non-resident workers, part-time workers, agricultural workers, domestic workers and migrant workers) and therefore expressed its expectation that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention can effectively benefit from the rights enshrined in the Convention. It also invited the Government to initiate a dialogue with the social partners to reflect on how to facilitate collective bargaining for various categories of self-employed workers and workers in non-standard forms of employment currently excluded from collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s reiteration that the current collective bargaining framework is based on an employment relationship but that this does not prevent workers and their organizations not covered by an employer-employee relationship to collectively negotiate with appropriate parties or authorities. The Committee also observes that the 2024 Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize (Rules and Regulations) retain the exclusion of certain categories of public servants from the right to collective bargaining (fire fighters, prison staff, contract of service workers, consultants and outsourced personnel – section 2). The Committee further notes the concerns expressed by SENTRO that non-regular employment arrangements, such as subcontracting, and their misuse, including in the public sector, constitute an important obstacle to collective bargaining and notes the Government’s reply that employees of contractors and subcontractors enjoy the right to bargain collectively (section 10 of Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE) Department Order No. 174, 2017). The Government further states that it remains open to dialogue with the social partners, with the technical assistance from the Office, to work towards developing viable models of collective bargaining in the informal economy, despite limited global practice in this respect. In view of the above and recalling from its previous comments that a number of legislative reforms addressing the right to organize of the above-mentioned categories of workers have been pending in Congress for many years, the Committee firmly expects the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention can effectively benefit from its guarantees, including the right to collective bargaining. The Committee trusts that, with the technical assistance of the Office, the Government will engage in dialogue with the social partners to explore ways of operationalizing collective bargaining for self-employed workers and non-standard categories of workers, including those working in the informal economy. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on progress made in this regard.

Certification procedure for collective bargaining in unorganized establishments. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in May 2025, the Court of Appeals in Manila ruled that DOLE Department Order (D.O.) No 40-J, series of 2022, amending Rule VII of DOLE Department Order No. 40, series of 2003, that provides for the procedure for certification of the Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent (SEBA) in unorganized establishments (establishments without a certified bargaining agent) where there is only one existing legitimate labour organization, was ultra vires and invalid. The Government clarifies that the decision does not affect the workers’ right to organize and to bargain collectively under the Convention nor does it essentially modify the application of the Convention; instead, the legal consequences are limited to the mode to be applied in determining the exclusive bargaining agent in unorganized establishments with only one legitimate labour organization. This determination should be conducted through a certification election as mandated under article 269 of the Labor Code (as in establishments with more than one labour organization) and not through the certification procedure introduced by D.O. No. 40-J. Taking due note of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical impact of this modification on the determination of collective bargaining agents in unorganized establishments with only one labour organization.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the 2024 Rules and Regulations include amendments on conciliation services, effectiveness of collective negotiation agreements and recognition of national employees’ organizations and incorporate the latest policies on the determination of the sole and exclusive negotiating agent, dispute resolution and automatic accreditation of the winner in a certification election. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of these amendments on the promotion and development of collective bargaining in the public sector.

Content of collective bargaining in the public sector. Public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law could be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities and requested the Government to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention are able to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including with respect to wages, benefits and allowances and working time. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Rule XIV(B), sections 6 and 8, of the 2024 Rules and Regulations maintains the policy of EO 180, which limits the negotiable matters to those that are not fixed by law and excludes compensation from the coverage of collective negotiation. The Government adds that: this limitation is anchored in national practice and jurisprudence; that section 7 allows for negotiation of additional subjects, such as access to records, work assignment, reassignment, transfer, distribution of workload and representation in different committees; and that the Government remains open to exploring alternative mechanisms to collective bargaining on compensation, in consultation with the social partners, that would advance the objectives of the Convention. The Committee recalls in this regard that while the special characteristics of the public service may require some flexibility in terms of collective bargaining, in view of the need for the state budget to be approved by parliament, public servants not engaged in the administration of the State should be able to negotiate collectively their wage conditions and mere consultations with the unions concerned are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention. The Committee thereforerequests the Government to engage in consultations with the social partners concerned to explore ways that would allow all workers covered by the Convention, including public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State, to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including with respect to wages, benefits, allowances and working time, and to take the necessary measures to that effect. The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office, if it so wishes, and requests it to provide information on any progress made.

Requirements for negotiation and adoption of collective bargaining agreements in the electricity sector. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that Memorandum No. 2014-003 seemed to expand the practice of collective bargaining in electric corporations beyond the parties by providing for the express involvement of a multi-sectoral consultative panel for review and negotiation of proposed collective agreements, as well as for the approval of collective agreements by the corporation’s general assembly of members. The Committee therefore requested the Government to consider reviewing the memorandum and its implementation to ensure that employees of electric corporations can fully exercise their rights under the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this regard that: (i) electric cooperatives are considered as entities imbued with public interest, subject to regulation by the National Electrification Administration (NEA) so as to strengthen harmonious relationship, promote well-being of employees and the welfare of member-consumers; (ii) Memorandum No. 2014-003 was superseded by Memorandum No. 2023-052, which also requires the participation of the Multi-Sectoral Electrification Advisory Council (MSEAC) and/or the Member-Consumers-Owners Programme for Empowerment (MCOPE) representatives in the consultative panel for the review and negotiation of proposed provisions of a collective bargaining agreement; (iii) the MSEACs are composed of member-consumers from organizations representing the following sectors: agro-fishery, barangay councils, business, civic, education, local government, media, religious, youth and women, while MCOPEs, in addition to members of these sectors, are also composed by member-consumer-owners from labour, senior citizens and indigenous people; (iv) this process allows the parties to take into account social and economic policy considerations during collective bargaining and aims at ensuring the economic and financial viability of electric cooperatives; and (v) there is no prior approval of the authorities for a bargaining agreement to be valid.

The Committee further notes the observations of SENTRO in this regard that, instead of reviewing the implementation of the previous Memorandum No. 214-003, as requested by the Committee, the NEA reinforced its stance by issuing Memorandum No. 2023-052 and Legal Advisory No. 1, according to which: (i) the MSEAC and/or the MCOPE participate in the consultative panel for the review and negotiation of proposed agreements; (ii) wages, retirement benefits and all benefits pursuant to existing NEA Memoranda are not subject to negotiation; (iii) a draft collective bargaining agreement is submitted to the NEA for its evaluation and consideration prior to signing by the parties; (iv) an agreement shall be ratified by a majority of votes of the general membership assembly before implementation; and (v) benefits and incentives provided by collective bargaining agreements will be renounced if funds are not available. The Committee further notes the concerns raised by SENTRO that unions in four electric cooperatives negotiated collective agreements but were struggling to have them enforced for years under the Memorandum No. 214-003. While noting the Government’s reply that the established practice of involving a consultative panel does not stifle the right to collective bargaining, the Committee welcomes the Government’s reported engagement with the NEA to address the above concerns, in particular through dialogue between the NEA and POWER-SENTRO and a DOLE-NEA Memorandum of Agreement to conduct joint capacity-building on collective bargaining for management and union representatives, which started in September 2024. Observing that the applicable regulations contain considerable restrictions on the scope and content of collective bargaining in the electricity sector, and in view of the concerns raised by SENTRO in this regard, theCommittee requests the Government to pursue the dialogue between the NEA and the social partners to assess and address challenges to collective bargaining in the electricity sector, and to take any other necessary measures, with a view to encouraging and promoting voluntary and good faith collective bargaining, in line with the Convention.

Collective bargaining in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force and, in view of the low collective bargaining coverage (1.4 per cent of workers according to ILOSTAT), to take all the necessary legal and practical measures to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that: (i) as of June 2025, there are 1,278 collective bargaining agreements registered with the DOLE, covering more than 313,000 workers in the private sector; (ii) there are 23 collective bargaining agreements in electric cooperatives covering more than 2,600 workers; (iii) the number of existing agreements increased by 7.3 per cent compared to the previous year; and (iv) since registration of concluded agreements is not an obligation, there may be agreements other than those registered with the DOLE. Welcoming the increase in the number of collective agreements concluded but observing that the number of workers covered by these agreements seems to continue to be extremely low compared to the total size of the working population in the country, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take all the necessary legal and practical measures to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention and to provide statistics in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee previously requested the Government to provide detailed information on the allegations raised by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its 2018 observations, which concern alleged union busting practices, blacklisting and anti-union dismissals and suspensions in three companies. Regretting the absence of information in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these allegations and, should this not yet be the case, to take the necessary measures to address them without delay.

Article 4 of the Convention. Categories of workers covered by collective bargaining. In its previous comments relating to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee noted the Government’s indication that under section 253 of the Labour Code, only employees (workers covered by an employer-employee relationship) may join trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining, whereas ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, self-employed and rural workers, as well as those without any definite employer may only form labour organizations for their mutual aid and protection. The Committee had also previously noted such restrictions on other categories of workers, including workers in managerial positions or with access to confidential information (section 255 of the Labour Code), firefighters, prison guards and certain other public sector workers authorized to carry firearms (Rule II, section 2 of the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize). The Government provides similar information in its latest report, pointing, in particular, to Department Order No. 40, 2003, as amended, which sets out the distinction between labour organizations established for collective bargaining (trade unions) and labour organizations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining (workers’ associations, including in the informal economy). The Committee understands from the above that certain categories of workers may only form and join associations for purposes other than collective bargaining and are therefore not able to fully benefit from the guarantees of the Convention in terms of collective bargaining. The Committee wishes to recall in this regard that, with the exception of organizations representing categories of workers which may be excluded from the scope of the Convention (the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State), recognition of the right to collective bargaining is general in scope and all other organizations of workers in the public and private sectors must benefit from it, including prison staff, fire service personnel, self-employed and temporary workers, outsourced or contract workers, non-resident workers, part-time workers, agricultural workers and domestic and migrant workers. In line with the above and with its previous comments under Convention No. 87 and recalling that a number of legislative reforms addressing the right to organize of the above-mentioned categories of workers have been pending in Congress for many years, the Committee firmly expects the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers covered by this Convention, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police, and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6), can effectively benefit from the rights enshrined in the Convention, including the right to collective bargaining. The Committee further invites the Government to initiate a dialogue with the social partners concerned to identify the appropriate adjustments to be made to the collective bargaining mechanisms in order to facilitate their application to the various categories of self-employed and non-standard workers mentioned above.

Content of collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities and requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, so as to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. The Committee previously observed that two bills aimed at establishing a Civil Service Code were pending in Congress and that, following ratification of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), the Government would develop a labour relations framework in the public sector that is aligned with that Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s observations that the mentioned bills were not yet enacted into law and that three bills with the same subject-matter were filed in the 19th Congress – Senate Bill No. 587 and House Bills Nos 550 and 1513. The Committee understands from the above that no substantial progress appears to have been achieved in expanding the subjects covered by collective bargaining for public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State and wishes to recall that Article 4 of the Convention calls for measures to be taken to promote machinery for voluntary negotiation on terms and conditions of employment for all workers, including those in the public service, with the exception only of those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and that the negotiable terms and conditions of work include wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. In line with the above and with its comments under Convention No. 151, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including in the context of developing a labour relations framework aligned with Convention No. 151, to ensure that all workers covered by this Convention, including public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State (teachers, health-care workers, etc.), will be able to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including with respect to wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

Requirements for negotiation and adoption of collective bargaining agreements in the electricity sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations from the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) denouncing the Philippine National Electrification Administration (NEA) policies for directing electric cooperatives to have their bargaining agreements ratified by entities other than those provided for in the law. The Committee notes the Government’s clarification in this regard that the issues that gave rise to the complaint by SENTRO evolved around the NEA Memorandum No. 2014-003, instituting Multi-Sectoral Electrification Advisory Council (MSEAC) representatives as part of a consultative panel for the review and negotiation of proposed collective bargaining and collective negotiation agreements in each electric cooperative. The Government informs that the Associated Labour Unions-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (ALU-TUCP) challenged the Memorandum at the Court of Appeals, alleging that it was contrary to the law on collective bargaining. The Appeals Court, however, considered, in its October 2015 ruling, that the Memorandum was not contrary to the law as it aimed at strengthening harmonious relations between employers and member-consumers and at promoting their well-being through increased transparency and a consultative approach. The Court of Appeals also considered that the rules of the Memorandum do not stifle collective bargaining as they only deal with prior or subsequent activities – the matters subject to review and negotiation by the consultative panel only refer to proposed collective bargaining provisions and not those already agreed upon. In addition, this allows the participants to be aware of the broader picture in which negotiations take place. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in July 2017, the Supreme Court denied with finality the petition for review on certiorari filed by the union and that these issues are thus deemed judicially resolved. The Government further informs that, like in other sectors and industries, the entry into force of collective agreements in the electricity sector does not require prior approval of labour administration authorities.

While taking due note of the above, the Committee observes from the text of Memorandum No. 2014-003 that, according to the NEA, some unions did not heed its advice to have more reasonable economic and non-economic demands in negotiations so as to avoid financial difficulties affecting the delivery of electric service, and that there was therefore a need to strengthen harmonious relationships, promote the well-being of employees and the welfare of member-consumers, and to that effect, transparency requiring consultation and involvement of other sectors and stakeholders was necessary. The Memorandum thus requires the participation of MSEAC representatives in a consultative panel for the review and negotiation of proposed provisions of collective bargaining agreements, which are later ratified by a plurality of votes of the General Membership Assembly, after the management has thoroughly analysed whether they offer a balanced welfare for both employees and member-consumers and overall financial standing of the electric corporation.

While it did not receive specific information on the exact composition of the MSEAC and the consultative panel, the Committee understands from the above that Memorandum No. 2014-003 seems to expand the practice of collective bargaining in electric corporations beyond the parties, that is, the relevant trade unions and the electric corporations, as employers, by providing for the express involvement of a multi-sectoral consultative panel for review and negotiation of proposed collective agreements, as well as for the approval of collective agreements by the corporation’s general assembly of members. Although it was not provided with information on the exact involvement of the panel in negotiations, the Committee wishes to underline that provisions requiring agreements to be negotiated with the involvement of third parties may raise problems of compatibility with the Convention, as such third-party involvement considerably alters the bipartite nature of the negotiating process and may not be conducive to promoting voluntary collective bargaining within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls in this regard that, the Convention tends essentially to promote bipartite negotiation of terms and conditions of employment, namely between employers and employers’ organizations, on the one hand, and workers’ organizations, on the other, so that the parties enjoy full autonomy in determining the content of any agreements concluded. Furthermore, such agreements should not be subject to prior approval by entities other than the parties concerned. In line with the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the composition of the consultative panel and the manner of its involvement in negotiations of collective bargaining agreements in the electricity sector. It further calls on the Government to consider reviewing Memorandum No. 2014-003 and its implementation, together with the social partners, so as to ensure that employees of electric corporations may fully exercise their rights under the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to report on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the electricity sector and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any other measures taken to encourage and promote voluntary and good-faith collective bargaining in the sector.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s observations on the number of collective agreements registered for the past six years and notes that the Government points to a trend in registration of collective agreements that is consistent with the number of agreements that expire over the same period. The Government indicates, in particular, that, in 2020, the number of collective agreements registered that year declined from 263 to 175, covering more than 60,000 workers, which is associated with the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in 2021, the number of registered collective agreements increased again to 319, covering about 63,000 workers, and during the period from 1 January to May 2022, 162 collective agreements were registered covering around 39,000 workers. In this respect, the Committee also notes with concernthat according to ILOSTAT, only 1.4 per cent of employees in the country are covered by collective agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all the necessary legal and practical measures to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention, including those mentioned in the present comment, and to provide information in this respect. The Committee furthers requests the Government to continue to report on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Article 4 of the Convention. Ratification requirements for collective agreements in the electricity sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations from the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) denouncing the Philippine National Electrification Administration (NEA) policies for directing electric cooperatives to have their bargaining agreements ratified by entities other than those provided for in the law. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication of the steps taken to address this matter through meetings between the Department of Labor and Employment and the NEA and the proposed Memorandum of Agreement which included a regular dialogue to craft joint guidelines government private sector participation to ensure that the rights of employees of electric cooperatives are protected, including as regards collective bargaining. Observing that the finalization of the Memorandum has stalled, the Committee requests the Government to inform in future reports of any progress made in this regard so as to ensure that NEA employees may fully exercise their rights under the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the entry into force of collective agreements in the electricity sector requires the prior approval of the labour administration.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the observations received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 1 September 2018 concerning challenges to the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the allegations raised therein.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on steps taken to ensure that all remaining allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference raised by the national and international workers’ organizations in their previous observations are addressed and, if need be, appropriate measures of redress are taken and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions imposed, so as to ensure the effective protection of the right to organize. The Committee takes due note of the detailed information provided by the Government and the resolution of these cases.

Concerning the need to take measures to strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee notes with interest the issuance on 18 October 2017 of Department Order No. 183 on new regulations on labour law inspection and the Revised Rules on the Administrative and Enforcement of Labor Laws which seek to strengthen the implementation of the visitorial and enforcement powers under the Labor Code towards securing a higher level of compliance with labor law standards. It further notes with interest the steps taken to ensure the participation of labor and employer organizations in the inspection of establishments provided through Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Administrative Order No. 164 of 2017 and the subsequent deputization of 126 trade union inspectors. Overall, the Government informs that out of more than 900,000 establishments nationwide, 136,986 were inspected from June 2016–June 2018. The intensified labour enforcement system has given rise to 217,491 workers being regularized.

As regards the authority to inspect in the export processing zones (EPZs) and special economic zones, the Government indicates that the Memorandum of Agreement which had been established between DOLE and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) was revoked on 8 January 2018 thereby affirming DOLE’s authority to inspect establishments in these zones. DOLE additionally undertakes to intensify the conduct of inspections of all establishments within the zones in order to strictly enforce labour, technical and occupational safety and health standards

The Committee further notes with interest the information concerning the progress made within the framework of the DOLE–ILO–EU–GSP+ Development Cooperation Project aimed at further improving the capacity of labour, employers and government toward the better implementation of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities and requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, so as to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, and working time in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that House Bills Nos 4553 and 5477 towards establishing a Civil Service Code have been filed and are pending in Congress. The Committee further notes with interest the recent ratification of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Government’s indication that it still needs to develop a labour relations framework in the public sector that is aligned to Convention No. 151. The Committee expects that when designing this framework it shall bear in mind that Article 4 of this present Convention calls for measures to be taken to promote machinery for voluntary negotiation on terms and conditions of employment for all workers, including those in the public service, with the exception only of those who are engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers included in the scope of this Convention (including teachers, health-care workers, etc.) will be able to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including with respect to wages, benefits and allowances, and working time and requests it to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Article 4 of the Convention. Ratification requirements for collective agreements in the electricity sector. The Committee notes that the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) denounces the Philippine National Electrification Administration (NEA) policies, in particular a Memorandum from January 2014, directing electric cooperatives to have their bargaining agreements ratified by entities other than those provided for in the law, thus restricting freedom of collective bargaining. The Government replies that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has met with the NEA and agreed to issue a Memorandum of Agreement to establish a continuing dialogue, draft joint guidelines and conduct other joint activities to ensure that the rights of employees of electric cooperatives, including the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, are protected. According to the Government, this Memorandum of Agreement was sent to the social partners for comments before finalization. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to indicate what additional ratification requirements are imposed on electric cooperatives by the NEA policies and to provide information on any developments in relation to this matter, including how it is addressed by the DOLE–NEA Memorandum of Agreement.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations received from the following workers’ organizations: (i) the Trade Union Confederation Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) (25 June 2013) referring to matters before the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3037); (ii) the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) (1 September 2015); (iii) Education International (EI) and the National Alliance of Teachers and Office Workers (SMP–NATOW) (28 September 2015); and (iv) the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) (1 October 2015). The Committee also notes the comments received from the Government in reply to the observations received from the ITUC, IE and the SMP–NATOW; and the SENTRO. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the pending observations of the SENTRO, in particular with regard to the requirements for union certification elections.

The Committee had previously noted the Government’s comments on the 2011 ITUC observations on anti-union dismissals and acts of interference on the part of the employer and requested the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s comments on the progress made in these cases, in particular the closure of two out of the seven cases, in which the parties had reached a settlement, facilitated by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), and the indication that the remaining five cases are being addressed. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any further developments in this regard as well as in relation to the pending 2012 ITUC observations.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s comments on the observations submitted by the ITUC in 2010 and previous years on alleged anti-union practices, acts of anti-union discrimination including dismissals, and employer interference, as well as cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists, as well as other anti-union tactics in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. The Committee had requested the Government to continue to provide information concerning any developments with regard to the investigation of these allegations. The Committee notes that the Government states that: (i) the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council-Monitoring Body (NTIPC-MB) issued Resolution No. 8 of 2012 to facilitate gathering of information on 17 cases of alleged violations of trade union rights within economic zones that were presented by the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) in its observations from 30 September 2009; and (ii) many of the cases have already been settled or are being addressed. In this respect, the Committee also notes the Government’s comments on the 2015 ITUC and SENTRO observations alleging further violations of trade union rights and anti-union practices (including anti-union dismissals and employer interference, blacklisting of trade union members and activists and replacement of strikers), indicating that: (i) the specific cases of anti-union acts and interference reported by the ITUC and the SENTRO have been validated and settled or are being monitored by the NTIPC-MB and the Regional Tripartite Monitoring Bodies (RTMBs); and (ii) the number of unfair labour practices cases filed before the NCMB and its regional branches has considerably decreased. The Committee takes note of this information and trusts that the Government will continue to take steps to ensure that all remaining allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, including in EPZs, are addressed and, if need be, appropriate measures of redress are taken and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions imposed, so as to ensure the effective protection of the right to organize. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Concerning the strengthening in practice of the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee noted in its previous comments the Government’s indication of specific measures taken in this regard. The Committee welcomes the additional information provided by the Government in its report on the Incentivizing Compliance Program, referred to as the new Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Labor Laws Compliance System (LLCS), in particular the indications that: (i) the LLCS combines both regulatory and developmental approaches and involves a joint tripartite assessment and certification process to determine compliance by establishments with all labour laws, including freedom of association and collective bargaining; (ii) for a more effective monitoring, compliance officers are provided with an electronic checklist of labour law compliance based on decent work indicators, which makes data instantly available for viewing and processing in order to generate reports, statistics, and summonses; (iii) in case of deficiencies in compliance with labour standards, DOLE regional officers and compliance officers can provide technical assistance and educate employers and workers on labour laws; and (iv) to improve the efficiency of the LLCS, the Secretary of Labor and Employment issued an administrative order specifying five compliance assessment modalities. Taking note of these developments, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the functioning of the LLCS in practice, including on the participation of the social partners in the establishment of assessments of compliance of enterprises with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and to continue providing information on any legislative or other measures taken or envisaged to strengthen, in law and in practice, the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted with concern that, under item 14(a) of the Standard Employment Contract used by the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) provided by the Government in 2012, engaging in trade union activities constitutes a ground for termination of the contract. The Committee requested the Government to take all necessary measures to remove this ground for termination from item 14(a) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and to provide an estimate of the number of workers governed by this sample contract. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provision in the Standard Employment Contract making the act of engaging in trade union activities a ground for termination of employment was removed in December 2008 pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 08 of 2008.

Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities. The Committee noted that the areas that may be subject to collective negotiation do not include such important aspects of conditions of work as wages, benefits and allowances, and working time, and requested the Government to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, in order to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and the conditions of employment. In this regard, the Committee notes the observations of EI and the SMP–NATOW, as well as those of the SENTRO, referring to: (i) the limitations on the subjects of collective bargaining in the public sector; (ii) the decrease in the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), including in the public sector; and (iii) the non-ratification of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151). The Committee observes that in its comments the Government provides statistical data on union membership and on workers covered by CBAs and states that the CBA coverage range has been fluctuating in recent years mostly due to the fact that, while every year new CBAs are concluded, others expire. The Committee also notes that the Government informs about the adoption by the NTIPC of Resolution No. 6 of 2014, recommending: (i) the issuance of an Executive Order institutionalizing social dialogue in the public sector; (ii) the amendment of Executive Order No. 180, which limits the form in which government workers can bargain collectively by prohibiting their right to strike; and (iii) the ratification of Convention No. 151. The Resolution also urges the concerned agencies to revoke resolutions with provisions violating the rights of public sector workers to organize and negotiate collectively, and to review and modify the implementation of Executive Order No. 80, which limits collective negotiation in the public sector since it precludes negotiation on cash incentives. The Government further indicates the adoption of two resolutions calling on the DOLE to pursue the ratification of Convention No. 151. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, so as to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, and working time in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. It requests the Government to continue to indicate any developments in this regard and to provide copies of any relevant legislation adopted.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 4 August 2011, alleging anti-union dismissals and acts of anti-union interference on the part of the employer, as well as the Government’s observations thereon, in particular that the relevant cases reported by the ITUC were all classified as possibly labour-related and taken cognizance of by the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) Monitoring Body. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on any developments in this regard.

The Committee further notes the communication dated 31 July 2012 from the ITUC in which it provides its comments on the application of the Convention in law and in practice and refers to certain violations of trade union rights in 2011, including alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and anti-union interference on the part of the employer. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these allegations.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the Government’s observations on the comments submitted by the ITUC in 2010 and previous years on the alleged anti-union practices, acts of anti-union discrimination including dismissals, and employer interference, as well as cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists and other anti-union tactics in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. In particular, it notes with interest that the Government reports the following positive measures: (i) the submission of the ITUC allegations to the NTIPC Monitoring Body and the information provided concerning the NTIPC’s activity since its establishment; (ii) the creation of a tripartite team for an enterprise in the electronics sector (TTCEC) from among the members of the TIPC Monitoring Body with the mandate to conduct plant-level verification of the parties’ claims and make recommendations to the TIPC Monitoring Body; and the management’s willingness to negotiate with the union; (iii) the establishment of a tripartite team for an enterprise in the automobile sector (TTTAPI) to conduct plant-level verification of the parties’ claims; and (iv) the classification by the NTIPC Monitoring Body as labour-related of 17 cases of alleged trade union rights violations in EPZs and their referral to the concerned agencies for immediate resolution. The Committee trusts that the Government will continue to take steps to ensure that the above allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, including in EPZs, are expeditiously examined and, if need be, appropriate measures of redress are taken and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions imposed, so as to ensure the effective protection of the right to organize. It requests the Government to continue to provide information concerning any developments in this regard.

Concerning the strengthening in practice of the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that, for the purpose of enforcing labour laws and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, especially in EPZs, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has combined its routine inspection function with developmental approaches through the DOLE Kapatiran WISE-TAV Program, which seeks to ensure compliance in supply chains, and the Incentivizing Compliance Program or Tripartite Certification of Labor Laws Compliance, which consists of several tripartite certification hurdles, including the Tripartite Certification for Labor Standards Compliance and the Tripartite Certification for Industrial Peace, before the Tripartite Seal of Excellence can be achieved. The Government adds that DOLE and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) agreed to include all public zones in the Kapatiran and Incentivizing Programs, and ensure the continuous implementation of the 2006 DOLE-PEZA Memorandum of Agreement on labour-management education, joint inspection and conciliation–mediation in ensuring industrial peace. Furthermore, both DOLE and PEZA are part of the Verite Multi-Stakeholder Initiative, which started in 2010 and is currently being pilot tested through conduct of social audits in select garment and electronics firms inside the economic zones covering freedom of association, labour standards and occupational health and safety standards. The Committee also notes the national plan of action 2012–13 towards full freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in EPZs concluded by the Government (including DOLE and PEZA) and representatives of national federations of workers’ organizations, which seeks to take steps to achieve improved compliance with the relevant ILO Conventions. The Committee welcomes this information and requests the Government to continue to provide information concerning any legislative or other initiatives taken or envisaged to strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of complaints of unfair practices and inspections carried out on these matters in EPZs and special economic zones.

Lastly, the Committee notes the copy of the Standard Employment Contract used by the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), provided by the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee notes with concern that, under item 14(a) of the current POEA Standard Employment Contract, engaging in trade union activities constitutes a ground for termination of the contract. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to delete the engagement in trade union activities from the list of grounds for termination in item 14(a) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. It further requests the Government to provide an estimate of the number of workers governed by this sample contract.

Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities. The Government had further stated that matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion and disciplinary action were not negotiable. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on measures taken to fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, in particular that the Government indicates that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State are afforded the right to self-organize, and that a registered government employees’ organization may negotiate, on behalf of the members of the negotiating unit, terms and conditions of employment, provided that it is able to secure an accreditation from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as sole and exclusive negotiating agent for a particular negotiating unit (i.e. constitutional bodies and their regional offices; the executive department, including services and staff bureaux and regional offices; line bureaux and their regional offices; attached agencies; the legislature; the judiciary; state universities and colleges; government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters; and provinces, cities and municipalities). The following may be subject of negotiation: (a) schedule of vacation and other leaves; (b) personal growth and development; (c) communication system-internal (lateral and vertical), external; (d) work assignment/reassignment/detail/transfer; (e) distribution of workload; (f) provision for protection and safety; (g) provision for facilities for handicapped personnel; (h) provision for first aid medical services and supply; (i) physical fitness programme; (j) provision for family planning services for married women; (k) annual medical/physical examination; (l) recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities and facilities; (m) CNA incentive pursuant to PSLMC Resolution No. 4, s. 2002 and Resolution No. 2, s. 2003; and (n) such other concerns which are not prohibited by law and CSC rules and regulations.

The Committee notes that the subjects covered by collective bargaining do not appear to include such important aspects of conditions of work as wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. The Committee recalls in this connection that section 276 of the Labor Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the Constitution. Noting that the ITUC, in its most recent communication, confirms these restrictions on bargaining rights in the public sector, the Committee recalls that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures in order to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, in order to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to indicate any developments in this regard and provide copies of any relevant legislation adopted.

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

The Committee notes a communication dated 24 August 2010 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in which it provides its comments on the application of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it noted the recommendations of the High-level mission which visited the country in September 2009, and the commitment expressed by the Government to embark upon a comprehensive technical cooperation programme on freedom of association and to create a high-level tripartite monitoring body to review the progress. The Committee welcomes the extensive information provided by the Government on the measures taken in this regard as detailed in the comments on the application of Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the Government’s observation on the comments submitted by the ITUC in 2009 on the application of the Convention and, in particular, on the allegation relating to the use of contractual labour as a method to deunionize the workforce. The Committee notes, in particular, the Government’s statement that, under section 243 of the Labor Code, all employees, whether employed for a definite period of time or not,  whether undergoing a period of work probation or not, may establish and join a trade union to bargain collectively. Coercing employees in the exercise of their legitimate rights to organize is a prohibited act. According to the Government, violations of the provisions of the Labor Code regulating contractual engagements would result in regularization of employment status with the contractor/subcontractor or the company.

The Committee notes that for several years it has been requesting the Government to respond to the comments made by the ITUC with regard to the alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and employer interference, as well as cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. The Committee notes with concern further allegations of anti-union tactics in the EPZs contained in a 2010 ITUC communication, as well as the allegations of anti-union dismissal and anti-union practices at the Temic Automotive Philippines Inc. and Cirtec Electronic Corporation submitted by the Trade Federation for Metals, Electronics and Other Allied Industries-Federation of Free Workers (TF4). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon. It further requests the Government to submit these specific allegations to the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC), established on 20 January 2010 as a high‑level monitoring body on the application of international labour standards, and to provide information on the assessment and recommendations made by this body.

The Committee further welcomes the two regional seminars that were conducted in April 2010 on civil rights, freedom of association, collective bargaining, and labour law implementation and enforcement in the economic zones. The Committee encourages the Government to pursue these actions aimed at strengthening the capacity of all relevant government institutions and the social partners in the promotion and protection of labour rights in EPZs.

The Committee had previously noted that certain of the reported acts of anti‑union discrimination and interference related to certification procedures and elections and requested the Government to provide a copy of the relevant legislation, which, according to the Government, eliminates the employer’s interference in such processes. The Committee notes that House Bill No. 1351, previously referred to by the Government, became Republic Act No. 9481 on
25 May 2007, which amended the Labor Code. The Committee notes with satisfaction new section 258-A providing that an employer is not a party to the certification process and therefore cannot oppose a petition for certification election.

The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any developments as well as any legislative or other measures taken or contemplated to accelerate the procedures and strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of complaints of unfair practices and inspections carried out on these matters in EPZs and special economic zones.

Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities. The Government had further stated that such matters as the scheduling of vacation leave, the work assignment of pregnant women and recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities are negotiable; however, matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion and disciplinary action were not negotiable. The Committee recalled in this connection that article 76 of the Labor Code provided that the terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the Constitution. The Committee noted, moreover, that the Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK), in its communication dated 15 September 2008, also referred to the restrictions on bargaining rights in the public sector. The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no information on measures taken to fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. In these circumstances, while considering that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted, the Committee stresses the importance of the development of collective bargaining in enterprises and institutions in the public sector that are covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to indicate the developments in this regard and provide copies of any relevant legislation adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with interest that an ILO High-level Mission took place from 22 to 29 September 2009 with a mandate to review its comments in relation to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the pending cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee observes that the matters considered by the High-level Mission touch also upon those matters it has been raising in previous years under this Convention. The Committee will thus examine all of the outstanding points in relation to the application of the Convention in both law and in practice next year when it will have at its disposal the detailed mission report and any comments which the Government and the workers’ and employers’ organizations may wish to make. It requests the Government to provide a detailed report in reply to its previous comments for examination next year.

The Committee further notes the detailed information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in relation to the application of the Convention and requests the Government to reply to these comments in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It also notes the lengthy comments communicated by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in communications dated 29 August and 1 September 2008; the Kilosang Mayo Uno in a communication dated 15 September 2008; and the Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK) in a communication dated 15 September 2008. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these comments.

1. Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that for several years it has been requesting the Government to respond to comments made by the ITUC with regard to numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the latest detailed comments made by the ITUC, reporting extensive anti-union discrimination and employer interference, cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. The ITUC also referred in its 2006–07 comments to an order promulgated in 2004 (the labour standards enforcement framework) which essentially abandons the principle of government labour inspection for workplaces with more than 200 workers; self-regulation will be conducted in large companies at least once a year by an employer–worker committee based on a government-issued checklist and in companies where there is a registered collective bargaining agreement.

The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in several cases concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the most recent being Case No. 2488 which illustrates the considerable difficulties faced by workers in their efforts to have their grievances examined through protracted litigation and long and complex judicial proceedings which give rise to a situation of prolonged legal uncertainty (350th Report, paragraph 202).

The Committee emphasizes that Article 3 of the Convention requires effective machinery for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organize as defined in Articles 1 and 2. Acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are serious violations of the right to organize as they may jeopardize the very existence or independence of trade unions. Thus, the Committee stresses that national procedures against such acts should be prompt and accompanied by appropriate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Noting that certain of the reported acts of anti-union discrimination and interference relate to certification procedures and elections, the Committee notes that according to information provided by the Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association in the context of Case No. 2252, House Bill No. 1351, which has been approved by the House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the Senate, seeks, among other things to: (1) eliminate employer interference, which is, according to the Government, an incessant cause of delay in certification proceedings; (2) restrict the grounds for cancellation of union registration; and (3) clarify that the filing of a petition for cancellation of registration does not suspend a petition for certification election (346th Report, paragraph 176).

The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report a copy of House Bill No. 1351 and to indicate any developments as well as any additional legislative or other measures taken or contemplated to accelerate the procedures and strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones. The Committee also requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of complaints of unfair practices and inspections carried out on these matters in EPZs and special economic zones.

Article 4. Development of collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the Government authorities. The Government had further stated that such matters as the scheduling of vacation leave, the work assignment of pregnant women and recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities are negotiable; however, matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion, and disciplinary action are not negotiable. The Committee recalls in this connection that article 276 of the Labour Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all Government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new Constitution. The Committee notes, moreover, that the ITUC confirms these restrictions on bargaining rights in the public sector. In these circumstances, while recalling that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted, the Committee once again recalls the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and repeats its firm hope that the amendments to the Labour Code or other legislation would be adopted in the near future and that it will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to indicate the developments in this regard and provide copies of any legislation once adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 31 August 2005 and 10 August 2006, and the response of the Government to the first of these communications. These comments concern legislative issues raised by the Committee in its previous observation, as well as problems regarding the application of the Convention in practice, including anti-union dismissals.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Development of collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the Government authorities. The Government further states that whereas such matters as the scheduling of vacation leave, the work assignment of pregnant women and recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities are negotiable, matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion, and disciplinary action are not. The Committee recalls in this connection that article 276 of the Labor Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all Government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new Constitution. The Committee notes, moreover, that the ICFTU confirms these restrictions of bargaining rights in the public sector. In these circumstances, while recalling that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted, the Committee once again recalls the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and repeats its firm hope that the Labor Code or other legislation would be adopted in the near future and that it will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard and provide copies of any legislation once adopted.

2. Comments of the ICFTU. The Committee requests the Government to respond specifically to the ICFTU comments of 2006 on the application of the Convention, according to which: (1) an order promulgated in 2004 (the labor standards enforcement framework) essentially abandons the principle of government labour inspection for workplaces with more than 200 workers; (2) anti-union dismissals and acts of interference by employers are frequently committed in export processing zones and other sectors. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the number of complaints of unfair practices concerning trade union rights, and to provide statistical information on the number of inspections on these matters undertaken in small enterprises.

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

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication of 31 August 2005. It requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

The Committee will examine the questions raised in its 2004 observation (see observation 2004, 75th Session) under the regular reporting cycle in 2006.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and, in particular, the information that it has taken note of the Committee’s previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee recalls that article 276 of the Labor Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new Constitution. The Committee further recalls that section 3 of the Administrative Code is of a similar effect.

The Committee notes, however, that the Government has not provided further information in relation to the Committee’s hope that the draft Civil Service Code, which was adjourned without being passed by the 12th Congress, and which the Civil Service Commission had intended to refile before the 13th Congress, would be adopted in the near future.

The Committee once again recalls the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and the fact that the draft Civil Service Code was first filed before Congress over ten years ago. The Committee repeats its firm hope that the Code will be adopted in the near future and that it will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Code as soon as it is adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code, which had reached the various legislative processes during the 12th Congress, had been adjourned by the Congress without being passed. The Civil Service Commission will now re-file the draft Code before the 13th Congress.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and the fact that the draft Civil Service Code was first filed before Congress over ten years ago, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted in the near future. It further trusts that the said legislation will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft Civil Service Code as soon as it is adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code, which was refiled as Senate Bill No. 15111 on 10 March 1999, is now pending before the Senate's Civil Service and Finance Committees.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft Civil Service Code as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is still pending before the Senate Committee on Civil Service.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State and noting that the draft Civil Service Code was submitted to the above-mentioned Senate Committee on 27 June 1995, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted shortly. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee had noted the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is still being reviewed by Parliament which has yet to approve it before its adoption.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State in order to ensure the full application of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted shortly. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is still being reviewed by Parliament which has yet to approve it before its adoption.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State in order to ensure the full application of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted shortly. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is currently being reviewed before it is submitted to the President for signing.

The Committee hopes that the said legislation will provide for the development of collective bargaining in the public sector in order to ensure the full application of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee takes note of the information supplied in the Government's reports, in particular concerning the filing before Congress of a Bill to consolidate all laws pertaining to the government service. It also notes the passage of Act No. 6715, which came into force on 2 March 1989, to strengthen, inter alia, the part of the Labor Code concerning unfair labour practices and collective bargaining, and the Regulations issued thereunder of 7 June 1989.

In relation to Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention and the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the progress of the above-mentioned consolidation Bill (referred to as the draft "Civil Service Code") and to provide a copy of the legislation if and when it becomes law.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

1. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the information contained in the reports submitted by the Government. In particular, it notes that Executive Orders Nos. 126 and 251 of 1987 provide for the establishment of a National Conciliation and Mediation Board and of a Voluntary Arbitration Fund which can be used to subsidise the cost of voluntary arbitration. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed as to the operation of both the Board and the Fund.

2. Articles 4 and 6. As regards the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes with interest the promulgation of Executive Order No. 180 in June 1987. This Order called for the creation of a Public Sector Labour Management Council and set out guide-lines for the exercise of the right to organise of government employees. The Committee further notes that the Tripartite Review Committee endorsed an alternative proposal for the creation of a Public Sector Labour Board with responsibility, inter alia, for developing the process of collective bargaining and dispute resolution in the public sector. The tripartite committee also prepared a draft bill to establish such a board.

The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed as to the developments in this area, and to provide a copy of the legislation if and when it becomes a law.