Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PHILIPPINES: Violent dispersal of workers by the police; workers denied from returning to work despite lawful order
 

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

October 14, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

15 October 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-299-2007: PHILIPPINES: Violent dispersal of workers by the police; workers denied from returning to work despite lawful order

PHILIPPINES: Labour rights; human rights defender; violent dispersal; arbitrary use of force by police; impunity
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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 appeal, please click here:

Sample letter:

Dear __________,

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

Number of affected workers: 575 regular workers of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT)
Name of victims arrested during protest:
1. Pete Pinlac, President of Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (MKP-PLDT Union)
2. Atty. Virgie Pinlac, Spokesperson of Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan (KAISA KA)
3. Arturo Castillo, First VP of MKP- PLDT
4. Bong Beato, Second VP of MKP-PLDT
5. Roy Fernandez, Union Representative of MKP-PLDT
6. Mitzi Chan, Popular Struggles Director of Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD)
7. Aurelio Veloso (a.ka. Ogi), of Manggagawa Para sa Kalayaan ng Bayan (MAKABAYAN)
Alleged perpetrators of violent dispersal: Colonel Jojo Rosales and his men attached to the Western Police District (WPD), Manila
Date of incident: 10 October 2007
Place of incident: In front of the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE) head office in Manila

I am writing to express my grave concern regarding the violent dispersal of workers and union leaders by the police on 10 October 2007. The victims were protesting and were about to commence their hunger strike in front of the Department of Labour and Employment Office (DOLE) when the policemen attached to the Western Police District (WPD) violently attacked and dispersed them.

They were protesting against the layoff of 575 workers by the Philippine Long Distance Company (PLDT). The policemen instead started pulling hard the workers and union leaders who were sitting on the crowd towards their vehicle. They also started brutally beating them. It severely injured two of them, namely: Bong Beato and Mitzi Chan. Chan had her nasal bones ruptured due to severe beatings. After they were beaten and arrested, seven of them were taken to the WPD headquarters where they were questioned and subsequently charged for violating the Batas Pambansa 880 or the Public Assembly Act of 1985.

As you are aware, the workers and union leaders had just concluded its negotiation on that day with the DOLE. The workers were forced to begin their hunger strike to protest against the position taken by the DOLE and its failure to adequately resolve the dispute when the negotiation failed to reach an agreement. I have learned that even though the DOLE has already taken jurisdiction over the labour dispute, it failed to ensure that affected workers are allowed to return to work which is contrary to the conditions regarding its order in assuming jurisdiction. It instead allegedly encouraged the workers and labour leaders to accept settlement package by the management.

The manners wherein the policemen have treated the peaceful demonstration of workers expressing their legitimate concerns are extremely unacceptable. It is disappointing that the police have already exercise its routine and systematic use of brutal force in dealing with protest even on situation where they are not necessary - as in this case. The police should have exercised its maximum tolerance and high degree of restraint in dealing with protest. However, these were completely ignored during that incident.

As you are aware, even though the existing law regulating Public Assembly requires permits, designates places where protest can be held and inform the authorities of any protest actions to be done, but never does it allow the use of brute force. The police are likewise required to observe the principle of maximum tolerance - thus; the clubs, shields and other protective gear the police had to use in dispersing crowd are designed to reduce the use of force and not to take advantage over the protestors.

I therefore urge you to have those policemen involved in violently dispersing the protestor immediate investigated. Failure to do so and any failure to imposed adequate sanctions upon them would further embolden the commission of similar acts. I am aware that the same police officers and their unit have in the past been involved in violently dispersing peaceful protest. It is disappointing that they have not been held to account so far for their illegal acts and yet were able to carry on their duties as usual.

The charges against the workers for violation of BP 880 must be withdrawn. I am deeply concerned that the police have instead take advantage of prosecuting these workers to excuse themselves from any accountability of violently attacking the workers.

Finally, the DOLE must also ensure that the labour dispute between the workers and their company are promptly resolved accordingly. It must use its authority to ensure that the company observed to lawful orders. The affected workers must be allowed to go back to work while the labour dispute is being resolve. It is disappointing that the workers have been denied from returning to their work despite the DOLE assuming jurisdiction of the case - which is supposedly effectively allows workers return to work. The DOLE must reconsider its position of encouraging the workers into agreeing for settlement package if the allegations are proven to be true. It should instead resolve the dispute promptly according to existing labour laws.

I trust that you take appropriate action in this case.

Yours sincerely,

---------------------------------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
President
Republic of the Philippines
Malacanang Palace
JP Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila 1005
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 736 1010
Tel: +63 2 735 6201 / 564 1451 to 80

2. Mrs. Purificacion Quisumbing
Commissioner
Commission on Human Rights
SAAC Bldg., Commonwealth Avenue
U.P. Complex, Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 928 5655 / 926 6188
Fax: +63 2 929 0102
Email: drpvq@yahoo.com

3. Deputy Director General Avelino Razon
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 726 4361/4366/8763
Fax: +63 2724 8763
Email: bluetree73@gmail.com

4. Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera
Officer in Charge
Department of Justice (DoJ)
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Tel. No.: +63 2 523 8481
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
Email: agnesdeva@yahoo.com

5. Mr. Emilio Gonzalez
Deputy Ombudsman
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
and Other Law Enforcement Offices
3rd Floor, Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman
1104 Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 926 9032
Fax: +63 2 926 8747

6. Mr. Arturo D. Brion
Secretary
Department of Labor and Employment (Dole)
7/F DOLE Building, Intramuros
Manila NCR 1002
PHILIPPINES
Tel No: +63 2 527 2131
Email: sec_art_brion@yahoo.com.ph

7. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 917 9016 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TORTURE)

8. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders
Room 1-040
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS)

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-299-2007
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.