Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Philippines (Ratification: 1960)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee hoped that the Government would take the necessary measures within the framework of the revision of the Penal Code, to amend sections 142 (inciting to sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems; uttering seditious words or speeches; writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government) and 154 (publishing any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication) of the Penal Code under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) may be imposed.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that sections 142 and 154 of the revised Penal Code do not provide for a penalty of forced labour, rather a penalty of “prision correccional” under section 142 and a penalty of “arresto mayor” under section 154. Both penalties range from six months and one day to six years imprisonment. In this connection, the Committee once again observes that sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to be applied as a means of punishment for the peaceful expression of views, enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour under Chapter 2, section 2, of the Bureau of Corrections manual. The Committee further notes that, in the 2017 Report of the Officer of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee expressed regret that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 had criminalized libel over the internet. It urged the State party to consider the decriminalization of defamation (A/HRC/WG.6/27/PHL/2, paragraph 39). The Committee notes the Government’s information in its supplementary report according to which the implementing rules and regulations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act provide that libel committed through a computer system or any other similar means is punishable by a prison sentence, a fine, or both. The Committee therefore notes with regret that under section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, libel may be punishable by a prison sentence involving compulsory prison labour. The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It emphasizes that the range of activities which must be protected under this provision, from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour, thus includes the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 302)). The Committee therefore, urges the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act in order to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a certain number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to section 263(g) of the Labor Code under which in the event of a planned or current strike in an industry considered indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and settle it or certify it for compulsory arbitration. Furthermore, the President may determine the industries indispensable to the national interest and assume jurisdiction over a labour dispute. The declaration of a strike after such “assumption of jurisdiction” or submission to compulsory arbitration is prohibited (section 264), and participation in an illegal strike is punishable by imprisonment (section 272(a) of the Labor Code), which involves an obligation to perform labour. Furthermore, the Revised Penal Code also provides for sanctions of imprisonment for participation in illegal strikes (section 146). The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned provisions of the Labor Code and the Revised Penal Code so as to ensure their compatibility with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s explanation on the absence of a forced labour penalty for participation in an illegal strike under the provisions of the Labour Code. The Committee further notes the Government’s information in its supplementary report according to which a House Bill entitled the “Act limiting the power to assume jurisdiction over labour disputes involving essential services by the President of the Philippines” was filed on 24 July 2019 and is pending before the House of Representatives Committee on Labour and Employment. The Bill seeks to limit Government intervention leading to compulsory arbitration to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee points out that pursuant to sections 272(a) and 264 of the Labour Code and 146 of the Penal Code, participation in illegal strikes is punishable with imprisonment from three months to three years, and from six months and one day to six years, respectively, penalty that involves compulsory prison labour under chapter 2, section 2, of the Bureau of Corrections Manual. The Committee further recalls that the Convention prohibits the imposition of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, on persons participating peacefully in a strike. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned provisions of the Labour Code and the Revised Penal Code so as to ensure that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed for the mere fact of persons peacefully participating in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on all court decisions issued under the above-mentioned sections of the Penal Code and the Labour Code in order to assess their application in practice, indicating in particular the facts that gave rise to the conviction, and the penalties applied.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.