Chapter II Labor Policies and Rights in the Constitution

1. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO LABOR LAW. Aside from being one of two sources of the State’s authority to enact labor laws, the Constitution is of fundamental significance in this field of law. The 1987 Constitution embodies new provisions directly affecting the tights and welfare of labor.

The present Constitution introduces new provisions which are significant to labor law. These may be summarized as follows: a) It defines new State policies on labor, b) It guarantees individual and collective rights of workers; and c) It contains nationalistic provisions protecting Filipino labor.

2. NEW CONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES CONCERNING
LABOR. The Constitution adopts the following new policies regarding labor:

Art XII, Sec. 18. The state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the right of workers and promote their welfare.

This is the first time that a Philippine Constitution gives explicit recognition to the role of labor in social and economic development. It also states a policy of protection for the rights and welfare of notices.

Art. XII, Sec. 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them more competitive.

This is a strongly nationalistic policy favoring Filipino labor, raw materials and finished products which the State seeks to promote and strengthen.

Art. XIII, Sec. 3.”... The State shall promote the principle of said responsibility between workers and employers, and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance the, with to foster industrial peace.”
For the first time the Constitution expresses a -preference in the method of resolving industrial disputes. This is through the use of voluntary modes such as negotiation, collective bargaining, voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation. The reason is that these modes are less frictional and entail less social costs to the parties, to government, and to society as a whole.

Art. XIII, Sec. 14, “The State shall project working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions, and provide such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.”

The protection of working women, which the previous Constitution mentioned only incidentally, is now given a separate title in view of the important role of women in Filipino society.

3. RESTATEMENT OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES. The Constitution also restates and rephrases policies established in the previous Constitution, and readapts them for further implementation.

These policies are:

“The State shall afford fish protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for...

” (Art. XIII, Sec.3) This is a more positive and comprehensive restatement of the Protection to Labor clause. “. . . The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production, and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.”

(Art. XIII, Sec3) This policy precludes the State from adopting a laissez faire policy on labor relations due to the public interest involved therein, it also provides guidelines by which the State’s regulatory power shall be exercised.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR. The Constitution is the bedrock of the most fundamental rights of labor. These rights guaranteed by the Constitution may be classified into two, namely: a) individual rights of workers; and b) collective rights of labor in general.

The individual rights of workers are found in Art. III, Bill of Rights, which is described as “the charter of individual liberties.” While all persons enjoy these rights, their particular application to workers carries a certain significance which requires special consideration.

The collective rights of labor in general are enshrined in the Protection to Labor clause, Art. XIII, Sec. 3.These two sets of rights are not identical. In fact they may possibly conflict with each other, as will be noted later.

A. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS

5. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS Sect. I - “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (Art. 111, Const.) This is the due process/equal protection clause. An early application of the due process clause interpreted the right to property to include a worker’s right to his labor and to the fmits of his industry. Hence, a worker cannot be deprived of his job or his wages without die process of law (Philippine Moving Pictures Workers Association vs. Premier Productions, 92 Phil 843). In a more recent case the Supreme Court declared that “It is a principle well recognized in this jurisdiction, that one’s employment, profession, trade or calling is a property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be property within the protection of the Constitutional guarantee of due. process of law (Calianta vs. Carnation Phil., 145 SCRA 268 citing Femandt, Constitution of the Phil. 2nd Ed. ‘pp. 512-513).

6. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. Sec. 4 - - No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. (Art. III, Const.) The freedom of expression clause quoted above is derived from the Philippine Bill of 1902 which replicated verbatim the corresponding provision in the U. S. Constitution (1935), reaffirmed in the 1972 Constitution, and now appears in the 1987 Constitution which adds “expression” to the freedoms protected. American jurisprudence interpreting this provision has applied it to cover the labor practice of picketing. Hence, it has been declared that “by peaceful picketing, working men communicate their grievances.” As a means of communicating the fact of a labor dispute, peaceful picketing may be a phase of the Constitutional right of free utterance. But recognition of peaceful picketing as an exercise of free speech does not imply that the States must be without power to confine the sphere of communication to that directly related to the dispute. (Carpenters and Joiners Union vs. Ritters Cafe, 315 U.S. 722) In a more direct statement, it has been held that “what is protected is the element of communication, not the act of patrolling or marching which may be subject to reasonable regulation.” (International Brotherhood of Teamsters vs. Hanke, 1950).

The first local application of this guarantee to a case of peaceful picketing is recorded in Mortera vs. CIR (79 Phil. 345). This protection was expanded to apply to cases even where employer-employee relationship was absent. (de Leon vs. NLU, 100 Phil. 789, PAFLU ‘‘s. Barot, 99 Phil. 1008) However, subsequent doctrines have established the power of the court to limit the exercise of the right to parties involved in the labor dispute, or having a direct interest to the context of this issue. (PAFLU vs. Cloribel, 27 SCRA 465 ; RPM Workers Association vs. Reyes, 124 Phil. 1442) In the later case of Liwayway Publications vs. Permanent Concrete Workers Union. et al (108 SCRA 16), the Supreme Court, while allowing that peaceful picketing is a phase of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and could not be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship, maintained that this is not an absolute right. The courts, it ruled, are not without power to localize the sphere of demonstration, whose interest are foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus the right may be recognized at the instance of an “innocent - bystander” who is not involved in the labor dispute if it appears that the result of the picketing is to create an impression that a labor dispute exists between him and the picketing union. (See also TUPAS vs. Cóscolluela, 140 SCRA 302) The prohibition against injunction does not apply when petitioned by a third party whose property is sought to be levied in satisfaction of a judgment debt against another (Penalosa vs. Villanueva, 177 SCRA 778). Courts, in the exercise of their equity jurisdiction, may issue injunction where the concerted activities are aimed at compelling the employer to ignore a clear mandate of the law. (Bulletin Publishing Corp. vs. Sanchez, 144 SCRA 628) These antecedent rulings amortize the limitation of the exercise of picketing in certain cases allowed by law or equity.

Moreover, the law also prescribes the instances when injunction may lie against strikes, and picketing may be enjoined or restrained. (Art. 318, Sec. 3 (c) Art. 264 LC as amended by BP 227)Apart from these, the principle remains that no general injunction shall lie against peaceful picketing.
The freedom of expression is available to individual workers subject to the legal limitation of industrial peace t air their valid grievances. (Kap. Manggagawa ng Camara Shoes vs. Camara Shoes, 111 SCRA478)

7. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. The pertinent text in the Bill of Rights provides:

Sec. 8 -- The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged (Art.!!!, Const.).

More Pages