On January 10, 2007, workers of a Korean-owned factory, who have been on strike since September 25, 2006, were forced to appear in court to submit their defence in response to the charges of libel the policemen filed against them. The policemen attached to the Rosario municipal police station in Cavite arbitrarily filed libel charges over the chants of lapdog and butcher the workers allegedly made following a violent dispersal in September 2006. The workers appearance in court takes place after the policemen once again forcibly dispersed four workers on strike who are members of Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Chong Won Fashion Inc. (United Workers of Chong Won, Inc.), or CWFI, on the previous day of January 9.
Furthermore, not only did the police file a libel complaint, but they also filed charges of assault and grave coercion against the striking workers. These complaints are subject to a determination by the provincial prosecutors office in Cavite of whether or not evidence is sufficient to indict the workers in court. Also included in the complaints are several workers on strike attached to the Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Phils Jeon (United Workers of Phils Jeon). However, according to a source from the Workers Assistance Centre (WAC), the police complaints of libel and assault and grave coercion were filed after the workers filed complaints of physical injuries and grave coercion against the police, the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) security forces and Jantro security guards in October 2006.
While the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) acknowledges the right of the policemen to file complaints in court for redress and grievances, we are deeply concerned that their intent in filing these complaints is to further intimidate, harass and suppress the workers on strike. Although the court has yet to rule on the libel case, there are concerns of arbitrary use of authority employed by the police and suppression of the workers as they seek to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and right to strike. Moreover, should these alleged chants be found to, indeed, be a libellous offence, this decision will have serious implications for freedom of expression in the Philippines.
First of all, in the polices complaint, not only were the 32 workers charged, but they also included several John Does, or respondents, that are yet to be identified. Therefore, the complaints have failed to clearly identify who made the allegedly libellous remarks or chants; and even if the respondents are clearly specified, the elements of clear malice and premeditated intent that would constitute a libellous offence are difficult to establish in this case. What could be the premeditated intent and clear malice of the workers against the police? What gains do the workers attain for themselves for allegedly making these remarks against the police? After having been violently dispersed, brutally beaten, wounded and deprived of food and water supplies at their makeshift tents by these policemen and other security forces while on strike, could these remarks really be considered damaging to the police?
Secondly, the filing of criminal complaints of assault and grave coercion by the police against the workers are suspicious and, as noted by local people, could have been made in retaliation for the workers complaint filed in court. Furthermore, the polices investigation of the complaint of assault and grave coercion was not impartially and credibly conducted, for it has been learned that those who carried out the investigation and recommended the filing of this complaint are policemen who are their colleagues. There thus exists an obvious conflict of interest between the complainants, the police who conducted the investigation and those who recommended the filing with the court. What assurance is there that the documents and evidence that the prosecutor and legal counsel of the respondents have received are not fabricated or false?
Thirdly, ordinary courts have no jurisdiction in criminal cases arising from labour disputes according to existing guidelines. Therefore, any complaints related to the pending labour disputes should have been filed or submitted before quasi-judicial bodies dealing with labour cases, such as in this instance with the National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC), the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) and the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE).
It is therefore necessary that the libel charges that the police filed against the workers in court be withdrawn for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, even if the libel complaint is received by a quasi-judicial agency, discussion must be held to determine whether this complaint should be accepted or not given the concerns above. It is essential that any complaint against the respondents be filed, not only in the proper forum, but that sufficient evidence be gathered before an indictment is made. Unless concerns about the flaws and loopholes on the grounds on which a person can be charged for libel is not clearly stipulated, this complaint must not be filed in court. The court, in particular the office of the prosecutor, must adopt stringent measures to ensure that the filing of complaints are not abused and unnecessarily exploited. Congress must likewise seriously consider reviewing the laws on libel to prevent authorities or public officials from using the libel law for unjust purposes.
Once again, the AHRC calls on the concerned authorities, in particular DOLE, to effectively intervene in these cases without further delay to address the labour dispute and concerns by the striking workers. The integral issues, such as the managements refusal to begin negotiation on the workers demands under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and similar violations of labour rights, must be immediately addressed to prevent further violations of labour rights from occurring. Unless this labour dispute is promptly settled, more violations of the workers rights may occur, and the authorities may resort to further unjust legal actions to suppress and intimidate the workers.
