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

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

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. The Committee previously noted that under section 3 of the Human Security Act of 2007, a person commits the crime of “terrorism” in committing certain existing offences, if a consequence is “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the Government to give in to an unlawful demand”, and that such acts are subject to a penalty of 40 years’ imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) without the benefit of parole. The Committee noted the Government’s reference to the application of the Human Security Act in cases illustrating the use of violence or incitement to violence (bombing, multiple murder and attempted murder). The Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the Human Security Act of 2007.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that the Anti-Terrorism Act No. 11479 of 2020 has repealed the Human Security Act of 2007. The Committee notes that section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act defines the offence of terrorism as certain acts committed with the purpose, by their nature and context, to intimidate the general public or a segment thereof, to create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or influence by intimidation the Government or any international organization, or to seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic or social structures of the country, or to create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety. The penalty is life imprisonment, without the benefit of parole. The Government indicates that section 4 also states that advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action and other similar exercises of civil and political rights which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or create a serious risk to public safety, shall not be deemed acts of terrorism. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in practice, including copies of relevant court decisions.

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

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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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. The Committee previously noted that under section 3 of the Human Security Act of 2007, a person commits the crime of “terrorism” in committing certain existing offences, if a consequence is “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the Government to give in to an unlawful demand”, and that such acts are subject to a penalty of 40 years’ imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) without the benefit of parole. The Committee noted the Government’s reference to the application of the Human Security Act in cases illustrating the use of violence or incitement to violence (bombing, multiple murder and attempted murder). The Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the Human Security Act of 2007.

The Committee notes an absence of information on this point in the Government’s report. The Committee observes that in the Report of the Officer of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee recommended reviewing the Human Security Act of 2007 to ensure that it not only defined crimes of terrorism in terms of their purpose, but also defined the nature of those acts with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly (A/HRC/WG.6/27PHL/2, paragraph 20). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the Human Security Act in practice, including copies of relevant court decisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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 with regret that under section 4(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, libel is punishable by a prison sentence ranging from six months and one day to six years, 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(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 Labor Code. The Committee points out however that pursuant to sections 272(a) and 264 of the Labor 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 Labor 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 copies of court decisions issued under the above-mentioned sections of the Penal Code and the Labor Code in order to assess their application in practice, indicating in particular the facts that gave rise to the conviction, and the penalties applied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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. The Committee previously noted that under section 3 of the Human Security Act of 2007, a person commits the crime of “terrorism” in committing certain existing offences, if a consequence is “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the Government to give in to an unlawful demand”, and that such acts are subject to a penalty of 40 years’ imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) without the benefit of parole. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Human Security Act of 2007.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that Act No. 10168 or the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act, 2012, was enacted to complement the Human Security Act and criminalize the financing of terrorism. It notes in particular the Government’s reference to the application of the Human Security Act in cases illustrating the use of violence or incitement to violence (bombing, multiple murder and attempted murder). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application in practice of the Human Security Act of 2007, including relevant court decisions in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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. The Committee previously noted that, penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed under section 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 section 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 Revised Penal Code. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the abovementioned sections of the Revised Penal Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Department of Justice is still reviewing the provisions of the current Penal Code for possible revision to make it up to date with the present time. Referring to section 1727 on the liability of prisoners to labour, the Government also states that the Administrative Code of 1917 has been repealed, and replaced by the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), which does not carry the provision on the penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour. The Committee notes that although the 1987 Administrative Code does not provide for sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, convicted prisoners may be required to work under Chapter 2, section 2, of the Bureau of Corrections manual. 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 labour. It reminds the Government that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views.

The Committee therefore, hopes that within the framework of the ongoing revision of the Penal Code, measures will be taken to ensure sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code are repealed or amended so as to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain dissident political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of relevant court decisions.

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. 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 abovementioned 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 statement that House Bill No. 5471, which aimed to amend the Labor Code by rationalizing the Government’s intervention in labour disputes by adopting the essential services criteria in the exercise of the assumption of jurisdiction or certification power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, and Decriminalization Violations, was filed in the 16th Congress on 17 February 2015, but was later substituted by House Bill No. 6431 with the same objective. This Bill removed imprisonment as a penalty for violating any of the provisions of section 272 of the Labor Code. The Government further adds that House Bill No. 6431 was approved on second reading in February 2016 but failed to pass in the Congress. Subject to the discretion of the new administration, the same, or a similar bill incorporating proposed modifications, may be pursued as part of the Department of Labor and Employment legislative priority measures for the next Congress session. Referring to its comments made on this point under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend the abovementioned provisions of the Labor Code and the Revised Penal Code so as to ensure that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed for peacefully participating in a strike. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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. The Committee previously noted that under section 3 of the Human Security Act of 2007, a person commits the crime of “terrorism” in committing certain existing offences, if a consequence is “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the Government to give in to an unlawful demand”, and that such acts are subject to a penalty of 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole. Imprisonment involves an obligation to perform labour, pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code. Noting the information provided by the Government concerning one case filed under the Human Security Act in 2010, the Committee requested further information on its application in practice.

The Committee notes an absence of information in the Government’s report on this point. However, it notes that the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 13 November 2012, expressed concern at the scope of certain offences under the provisions of the Human Security Act, as well as at the lack of data on the implementation of this legislation (CCPR/C/PHL/CO/4, paragraph 8). The Committee reminds the Government that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, but recalls that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the Human Security Act of 2007, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of court decisions illustrating the scope of its application.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 142 of the Revised Penal Code, penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour, pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code) may be imposed for 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, pursuant to section 154, for 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. However, it noted the Government’s statement that a committee was in the process of studying amendments to the Revised Penal Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a designated committee, led by the Department of Justice, is in the process of undertaking the systematic review of the penal legislation, including by drafting an updated Penal Code, which will be submitted to the President and then Congress, once completed. 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 labour. It reminds the Government in this regard that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. The Committee accordingly urges the Government to take the necessary measures, within the framework of the systematic review of the penal legislation, to ensure that sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code are amended or repealed so as to ensure that no prison sentence entailing compulsory labour can be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain dissident political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Pending the adoption of such amendments, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of relevant court decisions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has discretionary authority to enjoin or force an end to strikes in labour disputes that occur in industries which, in his or her opinion, are “indispensable to the national interest”, by “assuming jurisdiction” over the dispute and certifying it for compulsory arbitration. Section 263(g) of the Code also provides that 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. The Revised Penal Code also provides for sanctions of imprisonment for participation in illegal strikes (section 146). The Committee noted in this regard that the Government was undertaking a review of the Labor Code, through tripartite consultation, which would include amendments to sections 263, 264 and 272.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a legislative proposal will soon be introduced to Congress to the effect that a penalty of imprisonment could only be imposed under section 264 of the Labor Code with a final judgement that an illegal strike or lockout has been committed. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. With reference to paragraph 315 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee once again reminds the Government that regardless of the legality of the strike action, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a strike. Therefore, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Labor Code and the Revised Penal Code so as to ensure that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed for peacefully participating in a strike. It requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard in its next report.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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. The Committee previously noted that under section 3 of the Human Security Act of 2007, a person commits the crime of “terrorism” in committing certain existing offences, if a consequence is “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the Government to give in to an unlawful demand”, and that such acts are subject to a penalty of 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole. Pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, imprisonment involves an obligation to perform labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that in August 2010, the Department of Justice filed the first case under the Human Security Act of 2007. The Government states that this case was against the Abu Sayyaf Group, a group that operational, intelligence and legal units from different agencies had established engaged in a pattern of kidnapping, ambushing and pillaging in exchange for ransom. The Committee notes that the Abu Sayyaf Group has been identified by the UN Security Council Committee (established pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011)) as a group that is subject to sanctions due to association with the Al-Qaeda. In this connection, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, and that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the Human Security Act of 2007, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of court decisions illustrating the scope of its application.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to section 142 of the Revised Penal Code, penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for 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 pursuant to section 154, for 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. The Committee observed that these provisions 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 and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken to amend or repeal sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a committee composed of experts in criminal law is in the process of studying the amendment to the Revised Penal Code. Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code are amended or repealed so as 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. It requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard with its next report. Pending the amendment of the Revised Penal Code, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 142 and 154 in practice, including copies of relevant court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of these provisions.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to section 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has discretionary authority to enjoin or force an end to strikes in labour disputes that occur in industries which, in his or her opinion, are “indispensable to the national interest”, by “assuming jurisdiction” over the dispute and certifying it for compulsory arbitration. Section 263(g) also provides that 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 (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code). The Revised Penal Code also provides for sanctions of imprisonment for participation in illegal strikes (section 146).

The Committee notes the statement in a report from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) entitled “Internationally recognized core labour standards in Philippines: Report for the WTO General Council Review of the Trade Policies of Philippines” of 20 and 22 March 2012 that in 2010, the Department of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction in seven disputes. The ITUC report also indicates that severe penalties are applied for participation in illegal strikes, including up to three years of imprisonment.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that one of the priorities of the Philippine Labor and Employment Plan 2011–15 is responding to labour market realities through policy reforms and aligning labour legislation with the Philippine Constitution, international treaties and ILO Conventions, in a sound and realistic manner. The Department of Labor and Employment is initiating the review of labour legislation through the Labor Code Review Project, on a tripartite basis and under the auspices of the Joint Congressional Committee on Labor and Employment. This Labor Code Review Project will create a tripartite commission on labour law reform composed of representatives from the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) and national and international experts on labour law and social legislation. The Government indicates that through consultations with tripartite support, these reforms will include the amendment of sections 263, 264 and 272 of the Labor Code. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that two bills are undergoing tripartite consultations for submission to the NTIPC, one of which removes the possibility of imposing a criminal sanction for mere participation in an illegal strike on grounds of non-compliance with the administrative requirements.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. It refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraph 315 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, in which it has considered that, regardless of the legality of the strike action, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a strike. Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, within the framework of the Labor Code Review Project, to amend the Labor Code so as to ensure that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) cannot be imposed for participation in a strike. It requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard in its next report.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

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. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations concerning the aims of the Human Security Act of 2007. The Government indicates that the implementation of this Act is currently being monitored and undertakes to furnish the information on its application in practice, once it becomes available. The Committee hopes that such information will be provided by the Government in its future reports.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

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 comments it has been making for a number of years, the Committee has been referring to the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed:

–      section 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);

–      section 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).

While having noted the Government’s views expressed in its previous report, according to which the above provisions punish the acts of making speeches, writings or proclamations “that create a clear and present danger to the public safety, public order and public good”, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has considered that the range of activities which must be protected under Article 1(a) of the Convention comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views, which may be exercised orally and through the press and other communications media, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and the adoption of policies and laws reflecting them, and which also may be affected by measures of political coercion. The Committee observes that the above provisions of the Revised Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to be applied as a means of punishment for the expression of views and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future in order to amend or repeal sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code so as to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the amendment, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 142 and 154 in practice, including sample copies of relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to certain legislative provisions, under which, in the event of a planned or current strike in an industry considered “indispensable to the national interest”, the Secretary of Labour 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 (section 263(g) of the Labor Code). 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 Labour Code), which involves an obligation to perform labour (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment for participants in illegal strikes (section 146).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. It refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraph 189 of its 2007 General Survey, in which it has considered that, regardless of the legality of the strike action, any sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a strike. The Committee points out, however, that the Convention does not prohibit the punishment of acts of violence, assault or destruction of property committed in connection with the strike.

Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), likewise ratified by Philippines, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend or repeal the above provisions of the Labour Code so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the participation in a strike, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress achieved in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under section 3 of the “Human Security Act of 2007,” which took effect in July 2007, a person commits the crime of “terrorism” in committing certain existing offences, if a consequence is “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the Government to give in to an unlawful demand”. Such acts are subject to a penalty of 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this provision, including copies of any relevant court decisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain that its application in practice does not lead to the use of compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, in contravention of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for expression of political views. In its earlier comments the Committee has noted section 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to sedition), under which a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour):

… shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government …, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices.

The Committee has also noted section 154 of the Revised Penal Code (Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances) under which a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person:

… who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State (subsection 1), or who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches, shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law (subsection 2).

The Committee notes the Government’s statements in its latest report, indicating, among other things, that section 142 “does not penalize a person for holding or expressing political views, per se”, and that: “What is punished is the act of making speeches, writings or proclamations that create a clear and present danger to the public safety, public order and public good.”

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee refers to its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has explained that the range of activities which must be protected under Article 1(a) of the Convention comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views, which may be exercised orally and through the press and other communications media, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and the adoption of policies and laws reflecting them, and which also may be affected by measures of political coercion (paragraph 152); that the Committee has been concerned to see that the offences laid down in the laws against defamation, sedition, subversion, etc., are not defined in such wide or general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views (paragraph 153); and that provisions such as those in sections 142 and 154(1) of the Revised Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views, and in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention (paragraph 159).

The Committee reiterates its firm hope that the Government will take steps in the very near future to amend or repeal sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention, and it requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this direction. The Committee also repeats its request that the Government provide information on the application in practice of sections 142 and 154, including copies of relevant court decisions interpreting these provisions and defining their scope.

Article 1(d). Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has discretionary authority to enjoin or force an end to strikes in labour disputes that occur in industries which, in his or her opinion, are “indispensable to the national interest”, by “assuming jurisdiction” over the dispute and certifying it for compulsory arbitration. The President of the Philippines is separately granted the same authority under section 263(g). The declaration of a strike after such an “assumption of jurisdiction” or submission of the dispute to compulsory arbitration is a prohibited activity (section 264(a)), and the violation by any person of any of the provisions of section 264 is punishable by imprisonment (section 272(a) of the Labor Code), which involves an obligation to perform labour (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code). The Revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment for participants in illegal strikes (section 146).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee further recalls its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, in which it explained that the suppression of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour is compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is limited to situations involving an acute national crisis, and even then the suspension of rights must be strictly limited in time and scope to what is required to meet the emergency situation (paragraph 183); or to essential services in the strict sense of the term – only those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (paragraph 185); or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (paragraph 184).

The Committee must once again point out that section 263(g) of the Labor Code is drafted in such general terms that it could be applied in situations extending well beyond those which conform to the criteria enumerated above. The Committee notes the statement of the Government in its 2007 report indicating that the requisite criteria under the Convention are in fact considered in the practical application of section 263(g). The Committee, however, notes from a Government news release that, in the year 2004 alone, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) intervened under section 263(g) on 47 occasions to “assume jurisdiction” of labour disputes at the point of the filing of strike notices, as a method of “resolving” those disputes.

The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report its further statement indicating that it is not the participation in illegal strikes (prohibited under subsection (a) of section 264) which is penalized under section 272(a), but only the illegal incidental activities prohibited under subsections (b)–(e) of section 264. The Committee notes, however, that, by its very terms, section 272(a) makes the violation by any person “of any of the provisions of article 264” punishable with imprisonment. The Committee asks the Government to supply copies of any interpretive court decisions concerning the sanctions imposed in terms of sections 272(a) and 264(a). The Committee firmly repeats its request that the Government take the necessary steps to amend or repeal sections 263(g), 264(a) and 272(a), in order to bring these provisions of the Labor Code into compliance with the Convention and that, in its next report, it supply information on the progress made towards this end. The Committee also refers the Government to its observations made on this point in relation to the application of Article 3 of Convention No. 87.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments.

1. Article 1(d) of the Convention. Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, 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 (section 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended by Act No. 6715). 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 (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment for participants in illegal strikes (section 146).

The Committee recalls, with reference to paragraph 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour must be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, health, or personal safety of the whole or part of the population. In this regard, the Committee notes from the summary of the Technical Consultation Meeting of the Congressional Oversight Committee on Labor and Employment (COCLE), held on 14 November 2002, that recommendations for proposed amendments to the Labor Code included one to "limit the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor on disputes involving the national interest to disputes involving essential services only as defined by the ILO". The Committee notes, however, that several bills to amend the Labor Code that were subsequently filed in Congress have all been referred to committee with no further action being taken. These include House Bill No. 6517, filed on 22 October 2003, which sought to limit the power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment and the President of the Philippines to assume jurisdiction over labour disputes and refer them to compulsory arbitration to those disputes at "work establishments that may truly be considered as fulfilling essential services such as hospitals, water supply and electrical services, the lack of which would endanger life or public safety". They also include Senate Bill No. 1049, introduced in the 13th Congress on 30 June 2004, and House Bill No. 1505, filed on 19 July 2004, which both sought to limit the power to assume jurisdiction and compel arbitration to disputes "in an enterprise engaged in providing essential services such as hospital, electrical services, water supply, and communication and transportation". The Committee notes that House Bill No. 3723, filed on 8 February 2005, seeks to revoke the power granted to the Secretary of Labor and Employment under article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The Committee notes that the Bills leave intact the criminal penalties for illegal strikes including imprisonment (with an obligation to perform labour under the Revised Administrative Code), which are imposed under article 272(a) of the existing Labor Code.

The Committee recalls that the Committee on the Freedom of Association, in examining section 263(g) of the Labor Code in light of the principles of freedom of association in cases involving complaints against the Government of the Philippines submitted by the Association of Airline Pilots of the Philippines (Case No. 2195) and by the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers’ Association (Case No. 2252), has underlined that "the criterion which has to be established is the existence of a clear and imminent threat to life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population", and that a back-to-work requirement outside such cases is contrary to the principle of freedom of association (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXVI, 2003, Series B, No. 3, paragraph 883). It has also recalled that the "responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should not lie with the Government but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved" (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXXXV, 2002, Series B, No. 3, paragraph 736), referring to paragraph 522 of its 1996 Digest of decisions and principles. It has therefore urged the Government to amend section 263(g) of the Labor Code in order to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee notes that, in regard to transportation, the Committee on Freedom of Association, referring to paragraphs 540 and 545 of its 1996 Digest, recalled in Case No. 2195 (paragraph 737) that it has never considered transport in general to constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government to amend the Labor Code with a view to bringing it into full conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that progress has been made to that end.

2. Article 1(a). Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for expression of political views. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 142 of the revised Penal Code, a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems, incite others to acts constituting sedition, utter seditious words or speeches, or write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1), a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication, maliciously publishes as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work) may be imposed in the situations covered by the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its report of 1999 that a proposal to amend section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code has been submitted. However, the Government stated in its latest report that this section governs the administration of prisons and ensures that the prisoners maintain hygiene and sanitation and keeps them productively occupied while serving their term of imprisonment.

While noting this statement, the Committee wished to draw the attention of the Government to paragraphs 102-109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that labour imposed as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will, in most cases, have no relevance to the application of the Convention; but on the other hand, if any form of compulsory labour, including prison labour, is imposed on a person because he holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention.

The Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be adopted in the near future to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard, and requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the action taken. Pending amendment of the legislation, the Government is again requested to provide information on the application in practice of sections 142 and 154(1) of the Penal Code, including statistics of convictions made thereunder and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee has noted the Government’s report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 142 of the revised Penal Code, a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems, incite others to acts constituting sedition, utter seditious words or speeches, or write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1) a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who, by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication, maliciously publishes as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that no penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work) may be imposed in the situations covered by the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its report of 1999 that a proposal to amend section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code has been submitted. However, the Government states in its latest report that this section governs the administration of prisons and ensures that the prisoners maintain hygiene and sanitation and keeps them productively occupied while serving their term of imprisonment.

While noting this statement, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to paragraphs 102-109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that labour imposed as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will, in most cases, have no relevance to the application of the Convention; but on the other hand, if any form of compulsory labour, including prison labour, is imposed on a person because he holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention.

The Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be adopted in the near future to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard, and requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the action taken. Pending amendment of the legislation, the Government is again requested to provide information on the application in practice of sections 142 and 154(1) of the Penal Code, including statistics of convictions made thereunder and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(d). In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, in the event of a planned or current strike in an industry considered indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labour 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 (section 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended by Act No. 6715). 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 (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment for participants in illegal strikes (section 146).

The Committee pointed out, with reference to paragraph 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour must be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. It noted from the Government’s report received in November 1994 that amendments to section 263(g) of the Labor Code had been proposed in Senate Bill No. 1757 which sought to limit the situation only to disputes affecting industries performing essential services and that the Bill had been filed with Congress.

The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its report that the said Bill is still pending in the Senate. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend the above section 263(g) with a view to limiting its application only to disputes in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate progress in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under section 142 of the revised Penal Code a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems incite others to acts constituting sedition; utter seditious words or speeches; or write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1) a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication maliciously publishes as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention may not be punished by penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work), and to provide information on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that a proposal to amend section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code has been submitted. The Committee hopes that measures will thus be adopted in the near future to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard, and requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the action taken. Pending amendment of the legislation, the Government is again requested to provide information on the application in practice of sections 142 and 154(1) of the Penal Code, including statistics of convictions made thereunder and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that 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 (section 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended by Act No. 6715). 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 (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to perform labour) of up to three years (section 272(a) of the Labor Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment (section 146).

The Committee pointed out, with reference to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour must be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. It noted from the Government’s report received in November 1994 that amendments to section 263(g) of the Labor Code had been proposed in Senate Bill No. 1757 which sought to limit the situation only to disputes affecting industries performing essential services and that the Bill had been filed with Congress. The Government’s previous report simply referred to a proposal to amend section 263(g) with a view to limiting its application only to disputes in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, but contains no information on the progress made in consideration of the abovementioned Bill No. 1757 in Congress.

The Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate progress in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

It has raised several other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under section 142 of the revised Penal Code a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems incite others to acts constituting sedition; utter seditious words or speeches; or write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1) a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication maliciously publishes as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention may not be punished by penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work), and to provide information on the practical application of the abovementioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that a proposal to amend section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code has been submitted. The Committee hopes that measures will thus be adopted in the near future to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard, and requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the action taken. Pending amendment of the legislation, the Government is again requested to provide information on the application in practice of sections 142 and 154(1) of the Penal Code, including statistics of convictions made thereunder and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that 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 (section 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended by Act No. 6715). 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 (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to perform labour) of up to three years (section 272(a) of the Labor Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment (section 146).

The Committee pointed out, with reference to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour must be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. It noted from the Government's report received in November 1994 that amendments to section 263(g) of the Labor Code had been proposed in Senate Bill No. 1757 which sought to limit the situation only to disputes affecting industries performing essential services and that the Bill had been filed with Congress. The Government's latest report simply refers to a proposal to amend section 263(g) with a view to limiting its application only to disputes in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, but contains no information on the progress made in consideration of the abovementioned Bill No. 1757 in Congress.

The Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate progress in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

It has raised several other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to its previous direct request. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee noted previously that under section 142 of the revised penal Code a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who by means of speeches, proclamations, writings or emblems incite others to act constituting sedition; utter seditious words or speeches; or write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1) a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication maliciously publishes as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention may not be punished by penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work), and to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government's repeated indiction in its report that forced labour is not resorted to in the Philippines and that no penalty of forced labour is either prescribed or allowed in the case of sedition, illegal strikes or other cases.

The Committee wishes, once again, to refer to paragraphs 102 to 109 as well as 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it indicated that labour imposed as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will in most cases have no relevance to the application of the Convention, but that, on the other hand, any form of compulsory labour, including prison labour, is covered by the Convention if imposed in any of the five cases specified in the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to provide information on action taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

1. Article 1(d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that in case of a planned or current strike in an industry considered indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labour and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide 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 (section 263(g) of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 6715). 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 (involving under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code an obligation to perform labour) of up to three years (section 272(a) of the Labour Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment (section 146).

2. The Committee noted from the Government's report received in November 1994 that amendments to section 263(g) of the Labour Code had been proposed in Senate Bill No. 1757 which sought to limit the situation only to disputes affecting industries performing essential services and that the Bill had been filed with Congress. The Government's latest report on the application of the Convention contains no new information on this subject. The Committee therefore wishes to point out once again, with reference to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties involving compulsory labour must be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate progress in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

It has raised several other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that under section 142 of the revised Penal Code a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who incite others by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, to acts constituting sedition, who utter seditious words or speeches, who write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1) a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication shall maliciously publish as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention may not be punished by penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work), and to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government's repeated indication in its report that forced labour is not resorted to in the Philippines and penalty of forced labour is neither prescribed nor allowed in the case of sedition, illegal strikes and other cases.

The Committee wishes, once again, to refer to paragraphs 102 to 109 as well as 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour, in which it indicated that labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will in most cases have no relevance to the application of the Convention, but that, on the other hand, any form of compulsory labour, including prison labour, is covered by the Convention if imposed in any of the five cases specified in the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to inform on action taken to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Further to its earlier comments the Committee notes with satisfaction that Executive Order No. 29 of 16 July 1986 repealed Presidential Decree No. 33, which had penalized printing, possession and circulation of certain leaflets, handbills and propaganda materials and the inscribing or designing of graffiti.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee noted that in case of a planned or current strike in an industry considered indispensable to national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify it for compulsory arbitration. Furthermore, the President may determine the industries indispensable in his opinion to the national interest and assume jurisdiction over a labour dispute (section 263(g) of the Labor Code). The declaration of a strike after assumption of jurisdiction or submission to compulsory arbitration is prohibited (section 264).

Participation in an illegal strike is punishable by imprisonment (involving under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code an obligation to perform labour) of up to three years (section 272(a) of the Labor Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment (section 146).

Recalling paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour, the Committee indicated, in its previous comment, that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties, involving compulsory labour, must be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that amendments to section 263(g) of the Labor Code have been proposed in Senate Bill No. 1757 which seeks to limit the situation only to disputes affecting industries performing essential services and that the Bill has been filed with Congress.

As to the scope of the services regarded as essential services in light of the application of Conventions Nos. 105 and 87, the Committee wishes to refer to its comment made in 1995 under Convention No. 87.

The Committee hopes that the Government will soon indicate the progress made in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted previously that under section 142 of the revised Penal Code a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who incite others by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, to acts constituting sedition, who utter seditious words or speeches, who write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1) a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication shall maliciously publish as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalled that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention may not be punished by penalties of imprisonment (involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work), and to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the "obligation to perform labour" is not a penalty but an integral part of the corrective system intended for beneficial and humane purposes. There exist no judicial decisions imposing the obligation to perform forced labour as a penalty for violations committed by persons protected by the Convention.

The Committee refers to the explanations provided in its observation under the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will inform on action taken to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

2. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of Executive Order No. 29 of 16 July 1986, which repealed Presidential Decree No. 33.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee noted that in case of a planned or current strike in an industry considered indispensable to national interest, the Secretary of Labour and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify it for compulsory arbitration. Furthermore, the President may determine the industries indispensable in his opinion to the national interest and assume jurisdiction over a labour dispute (section 263(g) of the Labour Code). The declaration of a strike after assumption of jurisdiction or submission to compulsory arbitration is prohibited (section 264).

Participation in an illegal strike is punishable by imprisonment (involving under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code an obligation to perform labour) of up to three years (section 272(a) of the Labour Code). The revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment (section 146).

The Committee notes the Government's renewed indication in its report that section 1727 of the revised Administrative Code is not a penalty and should not be interpreted as in violation with the Convention. The Government states that prison labour enables the prisoner to lead a productive and useful life, maintain self-worth and avoid boredom and self-pity; prisoners receive compensation.

The Committee notes that the Government refers also to its previous statements in relation to the application of Convention No. 87 where it indicated that there is no automatic prosecution for illegal strikes. The Committee refers in this regard to its 1991 comments concerning Convention No. 87.

With reference to paragraphs 102 to 109 as well as 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced or Compulsory Labour, the Committee recalls that labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will in most cases have no relevance to the application of the Convention, but that, on the other hand, any form of compulsory labour, including prison labour, is covered by the Convention if imposed in any of the five cases specified by the Convention. The Committee further recalls with reference to paragraph 123 of the above-mentioned General Survey that any compulsory arbitration enforceable with penalties, involving compulsory labour, must be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes that the Constitution of the Philippines grants all workers the right to strike (article XIII(3)). Noting also recent information from the Government that ILO's technical assistance is being sought for reform of the national labour laws, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee had noted that under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code all convicted able-bodied male prisoners not over 60 years of age may be compelled to work in and about prisons, jails, public buildings, grounds, roads and other public works of the national Government, provinces or municipalities; that persons detained under civil process or confined for contempt of court and persons detained pending determination of their appeals may be compelled to police their cells and to perform such other labour as may be deemed necessary for hygienic or sanitary reasons. It appears that the prison labour, in general, is not limited to clearing cells for the purpose of maintaining the hygiene and sanitary conditions.

The Committee notes the Government's declaration in its report that section 1727 is not and should not be considered as a penalty nor be interpreted as in violation with the Convention. Furthermore under the Revised Penal Code hard or forced labour can neither be imposed nor is it imposable.

The Committee refers again to paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour in which it states that labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will in most cases have no relevance to the application of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, but that, on the other hand any form of compulsory labour, including prison labour, is covered by the 1957 Convention if it is imposed in any of the five cases specified by the Convention. While prison labour exacted from common offenders is intended to reform or rehabilitate them, the same need does not arise in the case of persons convicted for their opinions or for having taken part in a strike.

The Committee hopes that the Government will indicate measures taken or envisaged to lay down that imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour, cannot be imposed on persons who hold or express certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system or have participated in a strike.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

1. In its previous comments the Committee referred to article 142-B of the Revised Penal Code (inserted by Presidential Decree No. 1834 of 1981) and to Article 146 of the same Code (as revised by the same Decree) under which the use of certain press facilities or meetings could be considered as propaganda to destabilise the Government or erode the faith and loyalty of citizens thereto and was punishable by imprisonment (involving under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code an obligation to perform labour).

The Committee notes the text of the Executive Order No. 187 of June 1987 communicated by the Government with its report under which Presidential Decree No. 1834 and article 142-B were repealed and articles 142 and 146 were restored. The Committee notes the texts of articles 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code as communicated by the Government with its report. Under section 142 a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed upon persons who incite others by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, to acts constituting sedition, who utter seditious words or speeches, who write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government. Under section 154(1) a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person who by means of printing, lithography or any other means of publication shall maliciously publish as news any false news which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests or credit of the State.

The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected by the Convention may not be punished by penalties involving, under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code, an obligation to work. The Committee furthermore requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions, including the number of convictions thereunder and copies of recent judicial decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

2. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the practical application of Presidential Decree No. 33 (on printing, possession and circulation of certain leaflets, handbills and propaganda material) if this Decree is still in force or a copy of any repealing legislation.

Article 1(d)

3. In its previous comments the Committee referred to the provisions of sections 263(g) and 264 of the Labour Code under which the Minister of Labour could assume jurisdiction over a labour dispute or refer it to compulsory arbitration considering that such a dispute affected the national interest, section 263 empowering the President to determine the industries affecting in his opinion the national interest. No strike could be declared after such assumption of jurisdiction or submission to arbitration and violation of the prohibition to strike could be punished by imprisonment, involving compulsory labour.

The Committee, while noting that the above-mentioned provisions of section 263(g) and 264 have been amended by Act No. 6715 of 25 July 1988, observes however that the substance of these provisions has been retained in the new Act. Under section 263(g), as amended, where in his opinion a labour dispute causes or is likely to cause a strike in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labour and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify it to the National Labour Relations Commission; such certification has the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike and workers must return immediately to work. Furthermore the President may determine the industries which in his opinion are indispensable to the national interest and may intervene at any time and assume jurisdiction over any labour dispute in such industries. Under section 264, the declaration of a strike after assumption of jurisdiction or submission to compulsory arbitration is prohibited. The Committee notes that penalties for engaging in illegal strikes have been strengthened since under the new section 272(a) any person who has engaged in an illegal strike may be punished by imprisonment the minimum length of which has been increased from one day to three months and the maximum from six months to three years (involving under section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code an obligation to perform labour).

The Committee refers again to paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, where it indicated that the imposition of penalties (even if involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services would not be incompatible with the Convention, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee regrets that on the occasion of the modification of the Labour Code the necessary measures have not been adopted to restrict the imposition of any sanctions of imprisonment, to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term and that, on the contrary, such sanctions have been aggravated.

The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will indicate the measures taken to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

4. Referring to its previous direct request, the Committee has noted the information provided by the Government relating to the detention of political prisoners during the previous regime as well as the provisions governing rallies, meetings and other political activities during the election campaign as contained in the Omnibus Election Code, 1985.