Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 411, Juin 2025

Cas no 2652 (Philippines) - Date de la plainte: 12-MAI -08 - Clos

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 68. The Committee last examined this case, which was submitted in May 2008 at its October 2020 meeting [see 392nd Report, paras 141–148]. The present case concerns several allegations of infringements of the rights to organize and collective bargaining on the part of Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation (hereinafter “the enterprise”), including mass dismissal of over 230 workers following their participation in union activities and strike action. During its last examination of the case, the Committee welcomed the Government’s numerous initiatives to reach settlement on the complainant’s request for reinstatement or payment of adequate compensation to dismissed workers and firmly encouraged it to continue to take all measures to contribute to reaching an equitable and mutually satisfactory solution for both parties. The Committee also firmly expected the Government to conduct an expeditious investigation into the allegations of harassment against the President of the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers’ Association (TMPCWA) and to ensure that Executive Order No. 70 from 2018, which aims to address the root causes of insurgencies, internal disturbances and other tensions, would not be misused to justify repression against trade unionists.
2. 69. The complainant provides additional information in communications dated 16 December 2022, 11 October 2024 and 9 January 2025, alleging continued attacks against labour activists, including the TMPCWA President, as well as the non-resolution of the 24-year-long dispute concerning compensation to workers dismissed by the enterprise in 2001 (see Case No. 2252, 332nd Report, November 2003).
3. 70. Regarding the pending dispute with the enterprise, which was at the origin of the complaint, the complainant indicates that the enterprise continues to be uncooperative and refuses to accept the union’s demands, despite several protests and request letters addressed to it and support groups active on the union’s behalf in Japan where the parent company is located. This continuous support demonstrates that the TMPCWA is a legitimate union and that its President is a labour activist and a unionist, not a terrorist. The complainant indicates that, after the change of administration in the country in 2022, it took months for the TMPCWA to meet with officials from the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE) but once they did meet in November 2022, the outcome was reasonable: (i) the DOLE would grant scholarships to children of TMPCWA members; and (ii) the DOLE would approach the Japanese Embassy to discuss the long-standing dispute and find a solution.
4. 71. In September 2024, together with its support groups, the TMPCWA launched a publicity action in front of the office of the parent company in Japan to push for negotiations and submitted another protest and request letter to the enterprise. The union was able to conduct two negotiations with representatives of the parent company who assured them that they would relay the union’s demands to the relevant department, as they were not allowed to send it to anyone else. According to the complainant, while there was a visible change of attitude from the company, with its representatives being responsive, this did not reflect a genuine engagement to resolve the long-standing dispute as the union had yet to speak to an authoritative representative of the parent company. In December 2024, another meeting was held between one of the support groups and the parent company, but the substance of the dispute was not discussed at all with the company representatives who simply stated that they would refer any requests to the relevant department.
5. 72. The complainant alleges that both the DOLE and the TMPCWA have tried to reach out to the enterprise but to no avail and it is therefore imperative for the parent company to take a stance on this matter and uphold international labour standards. Instead, the parent company is unwilling to take responsibility for the resolution of this case. The complainant therefore urges the Committee to issue strong recommendations to the management of the parent company, which it considers must determine an amicable settlement to the labour dispute.
6. 73. Regarding the situation of Mr Ed Cubelo, the TMPCWA President, the complainant alleges that he received a death threat through a text message on his phone in December 2021 and although the DOLE advised the union to submit a petition for a writ of amparo or lodge a criminal complaint, it decided not to do so for lack of resources and fear of public retaliation and arrest for reporting the incident. It was however decided that the union President would cease his public appearances for as long as there was a threat to his life. He moved from one place to another and had to establish special communication channels with his family to avoid leaving traces of his whereabouts. The complainant conjectures that the enterprise could be behind the red-tagging and death threat against the union President, as there were many incidents of red-tagging against the TMPCWA conducted with the enterprise’s involvement in the past. At a November 2022 meeting between the union and the DOLE, the parties agreed that the DOLE would issue a general statement upholding protection of workers’ rights and if any union leaders were to be arrested, the union could ask assistance to the DOLE. The union also demanded that the TMPCWA President be delisted from red-tagging, since the DOLE was part of the Inter-Agency Government Office in charge of the red-tagging list.
7. 74. The complainant further alleges that, in January 2024, Mr Cubelo was included among roughly 30 respondents in a resolution adjudicated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning attempted murder and prosecuted under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and other Crimes against Humanity. The complainants in this criminal case, all of whom were from the military or other State forces, claimed that Mr Cubelo was part of the New People’s Army (NPA) and that he was involved in an armed encounter against a squad leader on 8 October 2023. According to the TMPCWA, these accusations are false as Mr Cubelo was at an event in Taguig City with his daughter on the day of the alleged armed encounter. Furthermore, until May 2024, when another union notified it about the existence of the criminal case, the TMPCWA had not received any information with regard to the complaint pending against its President, a copy of the complaint or any evidence supporting it. It alleges that the complainants in the criminal case deliberately provided an incorrect address to prevent Mr Cubelo from participating in the preliminary investigation and to deprive him of his right to contest the charges brought against him. In these circumstances, the union’s legal counsel consulted with the Office of the City Prosecutor and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Malolos, Bulacan, as well as the Office of the Clerk of Court in the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region in Malolos, Bulacan, all of whom confirmed that Mr Cubelo had no pending criminal case against him. In September 2024, the legal counsel nevertheless filed an entry of appearance and a motion to dismiss (for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant trial with prayer to suspend/defer the issuance of warrant of arrest) and on the same day, the Regional Trial Court released a joint order dismissing the cases for lack of probable cause.
8. 75. The complainant maintains that this incident was an attempt to fabricate a non-bailable criminal case against Mr Cubelo to prevent him from pursuing his lawful work as a public personality in the field of labour and was aligned with the campaign of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) against progressive groups and individuals that are suspected to have links to armed communist underground organizations. According to the complainant, these fabricated charges involving red-tagging of the TMPCWA President constitute a continuing attack against the union because of its efforts to advance the two-decade-long struggle which forms the basis of the present case and has had a big impact on trade unions in the country as it demonizes the right to self-organize. Union organizers often receive arrest warrants without any knowledge or due process of law, based on fabricated charges, and these cases are generally non-bailable, suppressing workers’ union rights. The complainant further considers that the enterprise had full knowledge of the fabricated charges against Mr Cubelo and that it utilizes the trend of red-tagging in the country to discourage legal organizations from conducting mass demonstrations and other activities against multi-national corporations.
9. 76. Finally, the complainant states that on 6 December 2024, it received an invitation from the DOLE Region III Office in Central Luzon to attend a meeting at the Regional Tripartite Monitoring Body (RTMB) in San Fernando City, Province of Pampanga. The union declined the invitation stating that the venue was inconvenient and inaccessible as it was very far and unfamiliar to the union President or any of the union members, none of them residing close by, and that the enterprise has never had a factory in the region. The union also replied that it would prefer to meet DOLE officials located in the national office in Intramuros, Manila, as it had requested several times in 2024 without receiving a reply. The DOLE therefore suggested a meeting with the newly appointed Director of the DOLE Bureau of Labour Relations (BLR), during which an agreement was reached to conduct a joint effort in appealing to the ILO for new and stronger recommendations and the DOLE also proposed to further discuss the matter with the Japanese Embassy and suggested for the union to also consult the ILO Country Office in the Philippines.
10. 77. The Government provides its observations in communications dated 24 April 2023, 10 January and 12 March 2025. Concerning the original allegations, the Government reiterates that they have long been judicially resolved and addressed with finality by the Supreme Court, which pronounced itself on the validity of the dismissals and the non-entitlement to severance pay of the dismissed workers. Despite this, the enterprise offered financial assistance to the dismissed workers and, out of 233 workers, 158 accepted the compensation. The DOLE then engaged with both parties, but they failed to agree on the amount of compensation for the 75 remaining dismissed workers who refused to avail themselves of the initial compensation offered by the enterprise. As part of the out-of-the-box solution, the DOLE presented the parties with a proposal for a Livelihood Project financed by the DOLE and the enterprise, as well as a scholarship programme for qualified dependants of the dismissed workers; 12 such scholarships were granted to support tertiary education and other members may avail themselves of such scholarship grants. The Government indicates that although specific measures continue to be implemented, the union continues to demand certain payments from the enterprise. The lack of resolution of the dispute can therefore be attributed to several factors: the excessive amount claimed by the TMPCWA; the position of the enterprise that its earlier financial gesture offered but not accepted by the union, already satisfies the Committee’s recommendations; and the validity of the dismissals and the non-entitlement to a severance pay of the dismissed workers, as ruled upon with finality by the Supreme Court.
11. 78. The Government provides updates on the steps it has taken in this regard, indicating that several meetings were held between the TMPCWA and the DOLE in November 2022, October 2024 and February 2025, during which the DOLE informed that the scholarship programme would continue for qualified dependants of the dismissed union members and that the DOLE would also meet with officials from the Japanese Embassy to discuss the pending labour concerns. While the TMPCWA acknowledged the conclusive settling of the issue by the Supreme Court, it nevertheless reiterated its request for the DOLE to continue its efforts to bring the enterprise back to the negotiating table. The DOLE also met with the Japanese Embassy in April and June 2023 and asked for assistance to reopen the dialogue with the parent company in Japan, but the Embassy informed that although it had relayed the TMPCWA’s request, the management pointed out that the union had previously declined its financial offer. Given the circumstances, the Government finds it difficult to bring the parties to resume dialogue, let alone to negotiate. It nevertheless affirms that it will continue to implement the measures it has adopted to assist the concerned union members and will continue to engage with the TMPCWA, the enterprise and the Japanese Embassy on the possibility of reopening the negotiations. The latest meeting with the enterprise took place in February 2025.
12. 79. Turning to the complainant’s latest communication, the Government puts forward that the complainant does not allege any violations of freedom of association by the Government and instead recognizes the Government’s sustained efforts to intercede between the parties and pursue out-of-the-box measures to assist the concerned union members in line with the Committee’s earlier recommendations. However, what the complainant now seeks is for the Committee to issue strong recommendations to hold the parent company accountable by instructing it to reopen the negotiations with the TMPCWA, so as to come up with an equitable amount of compensation for the dismissed workers. In the Government’s view, the complainant’s request is outside of the purview of the present case and cannot be considered as additional information. Given its continued efforts to give effect to the Committee’s recommendation to ensure that the remaining workers who refused to accept the compensation package offered by the enterprise would be able to receive it, the Government contends that this case should be closed.
13. 80. Regarding the alleged harassment and death threats experienced by the TMPCWA President, the Government considers, from the procedural point of view, that these new allegations, while serious, are insufficient to constitute new evidence that would warrant their examination under the present case. While Mr Cubelo claims that the alleged harassment was intended to intimidate the TMPCWA into abandoning its efforts to seek redress for the dismissed workers and that the enterprise was fully aware of the filing of the criminal charges, the Government asserts that the allegations are not related to the original allegations of the case and that it is the Committee’s mandate to assess whether satisfactory evidence has been presented to support the allegations.
14. 81. On the substance, the Government indicates, in relation to the allegations of death threats in December 2021, that the TMPCWA President was advised to submit documentation to serve as evidence supporting his claim and to contact the nearest DOLE office in case he or other union members receive further threats or experience red-tagging or harassment. The DOLE also facilitated the conduct of capacity-enhancement training of mediators–arbiters, of focal persons from the RTMBs and partner agencies (the police, the army, the DOJ and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)) to strengthen monitoring, case build-up and reporting and to address red-tagging, harassment and death threats reported by labour activists and union members. The DOLE has not received any report from the mediators–arbiters that Mr Cubelo had sought their assistance.
15. 82. In relation to the criminal charges filed against Mr Cubelo in 2024, the Government informs that on 19 January 2024, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, indeed issued a resolution recommending the filing of information for violation of section 4(a) and 4(d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) against more than 30 individuals, including Mr. Cubelo, who was unaware of the proceedings until May 2024 when another union informed him thereof. On 3 September 2024, Mr Cubelo filed a motion to dismiss the cases and the Regional Trial Court in Malolos, Bulacan, issued a joint order the next day considering this motion moot, since it had dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause one day beforehand. The Government states that the trial court, based on its evaluation of the prosecution’s resolution found that the evidence submitted by the prosecution and the military clearly failed to establish probable cause to justify the issuance of an arrest warrant, which resulted in the immediate dismissal of the cases. The prompt action taken shows that the justice system is fully accessible, functional and equipped with sufficient safeguards to ensure that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted criminal proceedings.
16. 83. The Government also points out that the DOLE has utilized and engaged existing coordinating mechanisms with the aim of preventing similar incidents from occurring in the future. In October 2024, the DOLE referred Mr Cubelo’s claims to the RTMB Region III for validation and determination by the social partners whether the case was indeed related to freedom of association and warranted continuous monitoring. In December 2024, the DOLE invited Mr Cubelo to a meeting at the RTMB Region III, both in person and virtually, but he declined both invitations, stating that the venue was inconvenient and inaccessible, and that the enterprise has never had a factory in the Central Luzon Region. The Government explains that, under domestic law, venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. Since the alleged criminal acts for which Mr Cubelo was charged had taken place in Region III, any assistance Mr Cubelo may have needed from the DOLE could only be facilitated through the RTMB of that region. It was in the exercise of its mandate that the RTMB invited Mr Cubelo to a meeting for him to provide additional information regarding the allegation and to determine possible assistance to address his concerns, but he declined the invitation. Mr Cubelo’s allegations were also reported to the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC) under Executive Order No. 23 (EO 23) for the appropriate administrative action by the agency concerned. In addition, the DOLE–IAC secretariat and the RTMB Region III separately notified the CHR for the possible commencement of independent inquiry into this case. The Government informs that Mr Cubelo can also pursue the available remedies for malicious prosecution and labelling, including a petition for a writ of amparo, habeas data or the filing of administrative, criminal or civil cases for damages against the public officers involved. While Mr Cubelo was advised of possible remedies, he has not pursued any of them and the Government cannot, on its own, initiate these judicial actions. It nevertheless affirms its commitment to take appropriate action to hold the persons concerned accountable in these incidents, when substantiated by evidence.
17. 84. The Committee notes the detailed additional information provided by the complainant and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee recalls that the pending issues in this long-standing case concern repeated allegations of harassment of the TMPCWA President and the complainant’s request for the enterprise to pay adequate compensation to workers dismissed in 2001, who refused the original offer of financial compensation. The Committee notes in this regard the complainant’s allegations that the enterprise continues to be uncooperative and refuses to accept the union’s demand to negotiate to resolve the matter, despite several protest and request letters submitted to it and despite numerous efforts of the DOLE to bring the parties together. The complainant therefore considers that it is the parent company in Japan that ought to take responsibility for the resolution of the case and ensure that the union’s demands for compensation to the dismissed workers are renegotiated but it has, so far, not shown genuine engagement to resolve the dispute, even though some negotiations were held with the union. While further acknowledging the out-of-the-box solutions the Government has put in place to provide financial assistance to the dismissed workers, the complainant requests the Committee to issue further strong recommendations to the parent company to ensure that the matter of compensation to the dismissed workers is renegotiated. The Government, for its part, contends that the complainant’s request is outside the scope of the present case and that its latest communication does not point to any violations of freedom of association by the Government but rather puts light on its continuous implementation of the out-of-the-box measures to assist the concerned union members, as well as its sustained efforts to bring the parties together and give effect to the Committee’s recommendations.
18. 85. While welcoming the Government’s implementation of support measures to the dismissed workers and its continuous engagement with the parties, including through assistance of the Japanese Embassy, the Committee understands that the Government has had difficulties bringing the parties to dialogue, let alone to negotiate. In this regard, the Committee regrets to observe that more than 24 years after the mass dismissals that gave rise to the present case, the persistent and fundamental disagreement between the parties, as observed in its previous examination of the case [see 392nd Report, October 2020, para. 146], has prevented them from negotiating, in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations, and addressing the complainant’s concerns relating to adequate compensation. The Committee must recall that genuine and constructive negotiations are a necessary component to establish and maintain a relationship of confidence and could, in the present case, provide guidance on possible solutions to the complainant’s concerns that would be acceptable to both parties. In these circumstances, while acknowledging the differences of opinion, the Committee firmly encourages the Government to continue to take all measures that could bring the parties to the negotiating table and facilitate the dialogue between them on the pending matters, so as to settle this long-standing case and contribute to reaching an equitable and mutually satisfactory solution for both parties. Regarding the complainant’s demand to issue strong recommendations to the parent company, the Committee must recall that while complaints may be lodged not only in relation to acts by the Government but also to acts by any public or private authority that curtails the exercise of trade union rights [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 11], the ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for the principles of freedom of association lies with the Government [see Compilation, para. 46]. The Committee therefore addresses its recommendations to governments, and it is for them to take the necessary measures to ensure that, within their jurisdiction, freedom of association is fully implemented, in line with the Committee’s recommendations.
19. 86. The Committee further notes with concern the new allegations of harassment against the TMPCWA President, in particular a death threat received by Mr Cubelo on his phone in December 2021 and the filing of fabricated criminal charges against him in January 2024, and observes from the information submitted by the complainant that these incidents have had a considerable impact on the life and union activities of the TMPCWA President. The Committee observes that there is no apparent disagreement between the complainant and the Government on the factual circumstances of the incident or the steps taken by the Government to address it. The Committee observes in this respect that the DOLE advised on the available judicial measures and on the assistance that its offices could provide after having received supporting documentation but notes that, due to fear of reprisals, no specific action was taken by the union or its President and the DOLE has thus not been in a position to pursue the case further. The Committee must recall in this regard that the exercise of trade union rights is incompatible with violence or threats of any kind, and it is for the authorities to investigate without delay and, if necessary, penalize any act of this kind [see Compilation, para. 88].
20. 87. With regard to the allegations of fabricated criminal charges, the Committee notes that both the complainant and the Government provide a similar description of the incident, stating that: (i) in January 2024, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Cabanatuan City, on the basis of a complaint filed by several State agents and members of the military, issued a resolution recommending the filing of criminal charges against 30 respondents, including Mr Cubelo; (ii) he was unaware of these proceedings until May 2024 when he was informed thereof by another trade union; and (iii) in September 2024, the Regional Trial Court in Malolos, Bulacan, dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause. While the complainant claims that these fabricated criminal charges are a form of harassment, in line with broader actions being taken in the country against progressive groups and individuals suspected of having links with armed communist organizations, and constitute a continuing attack against the TMPCWA because of its efforts to seek redress for the dismissed workers, with a significant impact on other trade unions in the country, the Government states that these allegations, while serious, are not linked to the original allegations and should therefore not be examined in the framework of this case. The Government also emphasizes that the prompt action taken by the judiciary shows that the system is fully accessible, functional and equipped with sufficient safeguards to ensure that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted criminal proceedings. While expressing concern at the serious allegations put forward by the complainant that point to the repeated harassment and red-tagging of Mr Cubelo, affecting not only his personal life but also inhibiting his legitimate trade union activities, the Committee takes note of the judicial resolution of this matter, as well as of the additional steps taken by the Government, including the referral of the incident to the relevant RTMB, the IAC and the CHR for validation and monitoring, where appropriate, and the conduct of capacity-enhancing training for relevant State officials. Recalling in this regard that blanket linkages of trade unions to an insurgency have a stigmatizing effect and often place union leaders and members in a situation of extreme insecurity [see Compilation, para. 93], the Committee trusts that, in view of its commitment to hold the responsible persons accountable, the Government will continue to take steps to ensure that Mr Cubelo, as well as other trade unionists in the country, can freely exercise their freedom of association rights in a climate free from violence, harassment and threats of intimidation of any kind. The Committee further reiterates its firm expectation that the Government will ensure that Executive Order No. 70 (addressing the root causes of insurgencies, internal disturbances and other tensions) is not misused to justify repression against trade unionists and their legitimate activities.
21. 88. In conclusion, in view of the Government’s reiterated commitment to continue to implement out-of-the-box measures to support the dismissed TMPCWA members and to continue to engage with the parties to bring them to negotiate, as well as its expressed commitment to take appropriate action to ensure accountability for incidents of harassment of trade unionists, the Committee expects the Government to continue to do everything in its power to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations with a view to ensuring an enabling environment for the exercise of freedom of association. The Committee considers that this case is closed and does not call for further examination.