PHILIPPINES: Violent dispersal of workers by the police; workers denied from returning to work despite lawful order

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you regarding the violent dispersal of protesting workers by the police in Manila. The workers were about to commence a hunger strike on 10 October 2007 after negotiations with the Secretary of the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE) failed to reach an agreement regarding the questionable termination of 575 regular workers and the refusal by the telephone company to allow their workers to resume work despite a lawful order. The police pulled manhandled and dragged the workers who were demonstrating peacefully. Seven of them were arrested, detained and subsequently charged for supposedly holding an illegal assembly.

CASE DETAILS: (Based on the information received from the Kilusan Para sa Pambansang Demokrasya and Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas)

On September 15, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), the country’s largest and oldest telephone company, terminated 575 regular employees. About 450 of them were female workers. It was another massive layoff of workers after 484 of the company’s workers were laid off in 2002.

Most of those terminated on September 15 were rank and file employees and members of the union, the Communication Workers of the Philippines (Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas). It also includes 25 union representatives and a large number of their active members. Their union is said to be the country’s last remaining national union.

Prior to issuance of notice terminating workers in early September, there had been reports of the management’s plan to reduce the number of their regular workers. Termination of regular workers was allegedly the action taken by the company to introduce a contractualization scheme of workers which involves laying off regular workers and hiring new employees with new contract periods. The salaries, benefits and rights of employees with only contractual status are less than those regularly employed. For instance, contractual employees are not qualified to form themselves into labour union and to collectively bargain with their company for their rights and welfare.

When the company terminated 484 regular workers in 2002, workers had no choice but to going on strike. Those terminated were included in the list of a Redundancy Declaration by the PLDT Management or workers they claimed whose job description duplicates. A “return-to-work” order was issued following the strike by the former secretary of the DOLE, Patricia Sto. Tomas. She, however, excluded other workers from returning to work. Her order excluding other workers from returning to work was ruled out by the Supreme Court. In its ruling it argued that while the Secretary of Labor has power to issue a “return-to-work” order it has to no right or privilege to decide on its own in excluding workers from returning to their work.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the workers concerned have so far not been reinstated into their jobs because the company has refused to do so. The company has instead argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not categorically announce that they were ordered to accept all employees they had terminated. In effect, those not included in the list of returning workers by the former labour sectary have not been reinstated.

The present Labour Secretary, Arturo Brion, also reportedly agreed on the position taken by the company. Thus, those workers concerned were forced to carry on lengthy and expensive legal remedies in fighting for their right to be reinstated. Most of the workers, however, were unable to endure the long and tedious legal process. They were forced to agree into the management’s settlement package. Two of those who refused settlement and proceeded with the legal process with their union have already died.

Since it terminated a large number of workers in 2002, the company’s workforce has instead increased from 15,000 to 24,750 – which is contrary to their claims that they are reducing the work force and that there were duplications with the job descriptions.  About 87.5 percent of this is employees with contractual status.

On October 10, the workers and union leaders initiated a dialogue with Secretary Brion regarding yet another massive layoff of workers in the company. The union leaders demanded the reinstatement of terminated workers, to allow them to return to work and to stop the company from terminating more workers. But the secretary has instead reportedly encouraged them to accept the company’s settlement package.

Prior to this, on September 6 the DOLE had already issued an order assuming jurisdiction (AJ) of the labour dispute between the union and the management. The 575 workers who were listed to be terminated effective September 15 should have allowed subsequently to return to work following the DOLE’s order. However, the company had already instigated a lockout and refused to allow the workers to return to work on September 17. The company’s decision to have a lockout did not only violate the DOLE’s order, but also arbitrarily denied the workers from returning to their work despite a lawful order.

This was the subject of the dialogue between the workers and the DOLE on October 10 – which was called for by Secretary Brion. But when the union leaders and the workers demanded from the DOLE that those terminated are reinstated, allowed to return to work and to order the management to stop from terminating workers, they were unable reach an agreement. This prompted the workers to protest and commence their hunger strike outside the DOLE’s head office in Manila to protest the position they have taken; and against the illegal actions by the management.

As they started sitting down to commence their hunger strike in front of the DOLE office, policemen led by Colonel Jojo Rosales and moved forward into the protesting workers and started beating them. (To see photos, please click photo1, photo 2, photo 3) One of the union’s leaders, Bong Beato, was forcibly pulled out from the group. Several policemen repeatedly beat him as he was being taken to their service vehicle. One of Beato’s colleagues, Mitzi Chan, went to his rescue but she was instead repeatedly beaten by the policeman on her face which resulted in her nose being broken.

Those arrested were Pete Pinlac, President of Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (MKP-PLDT Union); lawyer Virgie Pinlac, Spokesperson of Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan (KAISA KA); Arturo Castillo, First Vice President (VP) of MKP- PLDT; Bong Beato, Second VP of MKP-PLDT; Roy Fernandez, Union Representative of MKP-PLDT; Mitzi Chan, Popular Struggles Director of Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD) and Aurelio Veloso (a.ka. Ogi), of Manggagawa Para sa Kalayaan ng Bayan (MAKABAYAN)

They were taken to the Western Police District Headquarters (WPD) following their arrest where they were charged for violating the Batas Pambansa (BP) 880 (the Public Assembly Act of 1985). The police accused them of disturbing the peace and traffic flow when they demonstrate in front of the DOLE office. Those arrested were released the following day, October 11, for further investigation by the police.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

This is yet another incident where policemen dispersing crowd of protestors justify their violent and illegal acts on the pretext of violation of the BP 880. On several occasions they have been able to use brute force in dealing with peaceful demonstration and protest without being held to account. The BP 880 though designates places where demonstration can only be held and requires permits or informs the authorities ahead of any protests, but it does not permit the police to use brute force or beatings in dispersing the crowd.

However, even though permits are not required, and use of force is not necessary the police have routinely and systematically used brutal force and violence in dealing with and dispersing peaceful demonstrations. They completely ignore the principle of maximum tolerance and exercise of restraint. For instance in this case, the workers were peacefully demonstrating by sitting together on the ground but the policemen instead moved into their crowd and they started forcibly dragging them away while beating them.

The use of force by the police should not have been necessary. The workers were charged by the police for violation of the BP 880 but none of the policemen so far have been held to account for using violent force. The police have long adopted this as their routine practice in dispersing crowd in open public.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to concerned authorities requesting them to take appropriate action into this case. The policemen involved in violently dispersing the workers must be subjected into investigation and that appropriate actions must be taken against them. The DOLE must also exercise its duty by ensuring that the welfare of the affected workers’ in the ongoing dispute are acted upon accordingly.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER