SBC- HRA DEBATE CUP 2017

MOTION: Let it be resolved that the Philippine

Government should prohibit the “End of Contract”

(ENDO) System

AFFIRMATIVE POSITION PAPER

Submitted by: 1-F

Debaters:

Ada, Neil Kirby

Chavez, Jordan

Corpuz, Francis Arthur

Head Researcher: Tabbu, Lyssa

Beadle: Acuña, Rhev Xandra

March 21, 2017

San Beda College of Law

Mendiola, Manila
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

Let it be resolved that the Philippine Government should prohibit the End of Contract (ENDO)

System

BACKGROUND

It is believed that contractualization in the Philippines has been accelerating since the

early 1990s. On the employee side, it was reported that from 14 to 15% between the years

1990 – 1994, the share of contractual workers in enterprise-based employment has jumped to

21.1% as far back as 19971. In the aftermath of the 2016 election, labor leaders and their

political allies pushed for an immediate end to the so-called “contractualization” employment,

a policy proposal currently popular with voters and politicians. The idea is for the government

to tighten and reduce, if not prohibit, the use of temporary employment contracts (TECs) and

job outsourcing2.

There are two fundamental reasons why workers would want to be regular employees.

First, regular workers are entitled to certain benefits that temporary employees are not.

Second, they can be dismissed only for lawful or authorized cause and with the observance of

due process. This means in practice that it is very difficult and costly for firms to dismiss regular

workers (security of tenure).3 As part of Philippine employment protection laws (EPLs),

employers must offer permanent employment to casuals and other temps after six months of

engagement; otherwise, the employers must lay them off. Through direct hiring, endo is

committed when firms repeatedly hire workers with experience and training without incurring

1
Cristobal, M., & Ressureccion, E. (2014). De-confusing Contractualization: Defining Employees Engaged in
Precarious Work in the Philippines. 342-343. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/websitecms/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1655.pdf
2
Pacqueo, V. & Orbeta Jr., A. (2016). Beware of the “End of Contractualization!” Battle cry. 1. Retrieved March 20,
2017, from http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/websitecms/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1655.pdf
3
6, Ibid.
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

certain costs every time temps finish their six-month temporary employment limit. Through

contractors, firms practice endo by repeatedly using the same temps without having to

regularize them. Labor leaders oppose this, saying they violate rights to secure decent jobs.4 5

Business groups such as the Employers Confederation of the Philippines and individual

business leaders are claiming that contractualization is actually good for workers and for

Filipinos. They suggest that contractualizationor the practice of hiring workers as

“contractuals” rather than as “regular” ones so as to avoid giving them the benefits that they

are legally mandated to receiveallows capitalists to increase their profits, hire more workers,

contribute to economic growth and therefore benefit all Filipinos6.

However, various studies confirm that this premise is answered in the negative.

By allowing capitalists to intensify their exploitation of workers, contractualization

actually enables them to pay workers less for the same work, stunt economic development, and

therefore harm the interests of all Filipinos – including that of the capitalists themselves.

But, more than that, contractualization also enables these individuals to weaken the

working class’ ability to resist exploitation, organize collectively, and fight for a better society.7

As the National Anti-Poverty Commission had put it, “undeniably such scheme is considered as

a modern-day slavery that denies the workers their fundamental rights including a stable

employment, family living wage, safe working environment, social protection benefits, and by

4
7 Prohibition of principal employers from contracting out includes: (i) activities directly related to the employer's
principal business (Article 106, para. 4, LCP); (ii) regular functions that are usually necessary or desirable in usual
business or trade of the employer (Article 286, para. 1, LCP); and (iii) jobs to “labor-only” contractors (Article 106,
LCP, in relation to DO 18-A, S 2011).
5
6, Supra
6
Why Contractualization is Bad for Everyone, Not Just for Workers. (2016). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/147934-docena-why-contractualization-bad-for-everyone
7
Ibid.
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

and large, to form or join trade union and participate in collective bargaining. It affects more

than half of the total working population mostly young and women workers. Even millions took

the risk to work in other parts of the world knowing that the government could not accord a

better opportunity for them and their families.”8

The practice of contractualization does not only hurt workers’ and capitalists’ immediate

interests, but it also undermines their long-term ones.

By giving tens of thousands of contractual workers less than what they should be

receiving had they been employed as regular workers, capitalists are also depriving them of the

resources they could use to lift themselves from abject poverty and perennial insecurity.

Insofar as freedom from destitution and insecurity enables or improves workers’ capacity or

confidence to engage in politics, capitalists are therefore also depriving workers of the

resources they could use to enhance their capacity to fight for their interests, resist

exploitation, assert their democratic right to determine their own destinies, and build a

different kind of society.9

For all these reasons, we in the affirmative side believe that we should prohibit the end

of contract system here in the Philippines. Given the current circumstances and the ever-

changing environment of our country, there are more than enough justifications for us to

abandon such system and make policies towards a more competent and caring labor

movement.

8
No Compromise: Ban Labor Contractualization Now! (n.d.) Retrieved March 21, 2017, from
http://www.napc.gov.ph/articles/no-compromise-ban-labor-contractualization-now
9
Supra at 6
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

I. NECESSITY

The Government is the accountable entity for the welfare of the people. It has the duty

to ensure that all rights are protected.

Therefore, the 1987 Constitution declares as a state policy, among others, that “the

state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of the workers

and promote their welfare.” Accordingly, the Constitution also commands: “The State shall

afford protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized and promote full

employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.” The same provision also

mandates the right of all workers to security of tenure, humane conditions for work, and a

living wage.

To implement these constitutional guarantees, Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise

known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, was enforced. Article 106 of the Labor

Code provides, “whenever an employer enters a contract with another person for the

performance of the former’s work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter’s

subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this code.” Hence, the

employee shall be entitled to the wages and benefits as provided by law.

Contracting or subcontracting is defined as an arrangement whereby a principal agrees

to put out or farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a

specific job, work, or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

such job, work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the

principal10.

Hence, under a legitimate contracting, first, there are parties. There is a principal

(contractee) who enters a contract with a contractor, or if the principal himself is a contractor,

he enters into contract with a sub-contractor. Second, there is a specific job. The contract calls

for the performance or completion of a specific job, work, or service. Third, there is a period.

Such job, work, or service is to be performed or completed within a definite or predetermined

period. Lastly, there is a location. The contacted job, work, or service may be performed or

completed inside or outside the premises of the principal11.

Thus, the employment of a project-based, seasonal, and fixed-term employee depends

upon the period stipulated in the contract.

Under project-based or seasonal employment, the period stipulated in a contract

depends upon the existence of the project which necessarily connotes the necessity for the

service to be rendered by the employee for the duration of the activity 12. This type of

employment is valid because the decisive determinant of the employment is the activity that

the employee is called upon by the parties. It is also unfair for the employer to pay an employee

for the job that is already done or no longer existing.

While under fixed-term employment (termed employment), the period may be any day

certain, which is understood to be that which must necessarily come, although it may not be

10
Department Order No. 18-A, Series of 2011, Department of Labor and Employment
11
Azucena. The Labor Code with Comments and Cases
12
GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga (GR No. 176419. November 27, 2013)
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

when13. The decisive determinant in fixed-term employment is not the activity that the

employee is called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the

commencement and termination of the employment relationship14. Therefore, the term is

under the discretion or desire of the employer which is stipulated in the contract even though

the demand for such kind of service is continuous. This type of employment results in the end

of contract system which is a clear violation of labor rights.

Therefore, it is the policy of the affirmative to prohibit the end of contract system of

fixed term of employment.

Firstly, a profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our

constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the right to make a

living because these rights are property rights; and the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation

of such would normally constitute an actionable wrong15. Therefore, labor rights should always

be protected and cannot be diminished by mere stipulations of the parties. In parallel, it is like

minimizing the utility of the property you own. Thus, they cannot be subject to mere

stipulations only.

Because the law is silent that employment with regard to providing for an indefinite

employment, employers abuse this to their advantage which consequently results in the

circumvention of the law. Hence, the end of contract system or endo. A concept so valuable as

the term of employment should not be subject to mere stipulation between the parties. The

abusive 555 scheme is a product of the fixed-term employment or the idea of being able to

13
Par. 3, Art. 1193, Civil Code of the Philippines
14
Idem. GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga (GR No. 176419. November 27, 2013)
15
JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120095, [August 5, 1996], 329 PHIL 87-102
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

stipulate bigger terms in the employment contract. Therefore, a stipulation for such

employment is too big of a concept of ownership to be freely done by the parties.

We in the affirmative side believe that there is a necessity to prohibit the end of

contract system or fixed-term employment. If we allow the continuance of such, there would

be a tendency to subject the employee to more abuse.

Secondly, ordinary workers are mostly the one who engage in fixed-term employment.

Most of them agree to any contract, regardless of the terms contained therein, to get employed

considering that it is difficult for them to find a job given their ordinary qualifications. In the

case of Purefoods Company v. NLRC16, wherein there were 906 contractual employees, the

Supreme Court discussed the patent inequality between the employee and employer when

both enters into a contract of employment. The Supreme Court held that:

[I]t could not be supposed that private respondents and all other so-called
"casual" workers of [the petitioner] KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY agreed to
the 5-month employment contract. Cannery workers are never on equal terms
with their employers. Almost always, they agree to any terms of an
employment contract just to get employed considering that it is difficult to find
work given their ordinary qualifications. Their freedom to contract is empty and
hollow because theirs is the freedom to starve if they refuse to work as casual or
contractual workers. Indeed, to the unemployed, security of tenure has no value.
It could not then be said that petitioner and private respondents "dealt with
each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever
being exercised by the former over the latter. (emphasis supplied)

Therefore, because of the unequal footing between the employer and employee, if

something as big as the term of employment can be stipulated in a contract, the employees

have no choice but to accept the job regardless of the conditions. The next time around, they

16
GR No. 122653. December 12, 1997.
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

may just set forth other substantial stipulations which also have the possibility to step on other

equally significant rights of workers and the latter will just accept the situation.

Third, while the affirmative side wants to prohibit the end of contract system. We are in

touch with the reality that not all businesses are equal in terms of capital. Therefore, as not to

hamper the growth of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), it is the policy of the

affirmative to have a gradual prohibition of the end of contract system or fixed-term

employment. Under this policy, the interdiction will start with large firms or those with

sufficient capital and resources to regularize all their employees. Then, the prohibition will

apply to MSMEs once they have a adequate capital and resources to do the same.

II. BENEFICIALITY

Alan Tanjusay, during the debates last 2016 elections said, “While large and small

corporations and businesses are thriving for many years now because of economic growth,

contractual workers are deprived of their fair share of the wealth they helped build. Workers

under this work scheme are called working poor because they cannot cope with basic standards

of cost of living.”17 By the word “deprived,” this whole contractualization system seems to

continually pose problems and furthers unjust treatment to our workers up to this very

moment. The affirmative side believes that should the government prohibit contractualization,

it will be beneficial to the following:

First is to the employees. Article 3 of the Labor Code reflects certain principles

enshrined in the Constitution aimed at protecting the interest of labor, promoting full

employment and equal work opportunities, and protecting the rights of workers. The term

17
The Manila Times. 35M Contractuals hope for end to ‘endo’, The Manila Times Online (25 April 2016) Retrieved
from < http://www.manilatimes.net/35m-contractuals-hope-for-end-to-endo/258359/> (19 March 2017).
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

employee refers to a person who works for an employer. He is a person who is compensated for

his labor or services by wages rather than by profits.18 Additionally, one who is in the service of

another under a contract for hirewhether express or implied, or oral or writtenis also an

employee.19 From these definitions, the very existence of labor derives from the employees.

Hence, it is essential to say that the primary task of the State is to protect the rights of

employees or workers in order to ensure a stable labor force and production. However, there

are different types of employment in the Philippines. Employees performing activities which are

usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade can either be regular,

project or seasonal employees. Those who are not carrying out such are then referred to as

casual employees.20 Meanwhile, there are also contractor’s employees who include those

employed by a contractor to perform or complete a job, work, or service pursuant to a Service

Agreement with a principal.21 Thus, a comparison is to set out to determine the issues why the

end of contractualization would be beneficial to almost 35 million contractual employees in the

Philippines.

The affirmative side believes, first and foremost, that the security of tenure is the most

desirable benefit of all. The guarantee of such benefit under the Constitution means that

an employee cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law

and only after due process is accorded the employee.22 Regular employees are granted security

of tenure. Contractual employees, of all kinds, are also covered by this guarantee but only up to

a limited extent. The latter is only under the mantle of the stipulations of the contracting

18
People vs. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, Sup. 7 N.Y. 2d 185, 187.
19
Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-2009, April 30, 1949.
20
Article 280 of the Labor Code of the Philppines.
21
Section 3(e) of Department Order No. 18-A by DOLE
22
De Guzman vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000.
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

agreement between the contractor and the contracting employee wherein the term of

employment is only subjected to a definite period of time. Although DOLE has provided rules

implementing Articles 106 and 109 of the Labor Code containing a prohibition against signing of

the contract fixing the period of employment to a term shorter than the term of contract

between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor, the employment status of a

contractual employee surely is still to be terminated at a very short span of time. To put it

simply, employment ends at the expiration of the contract. What the government should

pursue is to prohibit this kind of employment system and to mandate companies, especially

those in the private sphere, to hire employees with high expectations for a regular status,

without prejudice to the scheme of probationary employment. In line with this policy, the

employer will be restrained to lay off their employees as to prevent them from attaining a

regular statusthe prevalent practice in the status quo. More so, with regard to illegal

dismissal, as regular employees, they are entitled to security of tenure provided under labor

laws and may only be validly terminated from service upon compliance with the legal requisites

for dismissal. Thus, they should be reinstated in accordance with the provision of the Labor

Code, as amended, particularly that of Article 279. An illegally dismissed employee who, in

contemplation of the law, never left his office, should be granted the compensation which

rightfully belongs to him from the moment he was unduly deprived of it up to the time it was

restored to him; the back wages to be awarded should not be diminished or reduced by

earnings derived by the illegally dismissed employee elsewhere during the

term of his illegal dismissal.23 On the other hand, contractual employees are left behind. This

23
Kay Products Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162472, [July 28, 2005], 502 PHIL 783-799
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

side is being reminded that regularization of employees affords them protection under the law,

rather than being clothed by stipulations of contract with which the contractual employees

cannot have a proper recourse to discredit any violation on the same.

Second is to the employer. An employer refers to a person who employs the services of

others called workers and employees and who pay their wages and salaries. It includes the

principal employer or any person acting in his interest, directly or indirectly, but does not

include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when said labor

organization or its officers and agents act as the employer.24 And this contractualization system

is very apparent and has been traditionalized by these private employers and companies.

Generally speaking, prohibiting the system is prejudicial to said companies for it would amount

to the doubling of their liabilities, expenses and responsibilities. But then, the Labor Code,

which is of paramount consideration, and the passage of all labor laws are based on the

principle of social justice as enshrined in our Constitution: “the State affirms labor as a primary

social economic force, and therefore, it shall protect the rights of workers and promote their

welfare.”25 The State is duty-bound to provide and guarantee the following: promotion of full

employment, promotion of equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and

protection of rights of workers to security of tenure. Hence, should the government prohibit

endo, the employers should conform to the standard despite possible impediments and

inconveniences. We refer to this as “necessary harm.” Also, there is this presumption that

employees will not work hard and settle for mediocracy knowing that in time, they will be fired.

24
Article 212(e), Labor Code of the Philippines
25
Section 18, Article II of the 1987 Constitution; Anflo Management & Investment Corp. vs. Bolanio, .G.R. No.
141608, October 4, 2002.
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

Hence, if employers assure the attainment of a regular status, people would turn out to be

more productive and laborious. However, to prevent abuses, the employers must practice

austerity especially during said probationary employment. Notably then, the least benefits that

they could derive from prohibiting the system are companies’ investments on training and

developing its people that are maximized as they capitalize on employees’ loyalty and

retention. Moreover, issues on security of trade information and business insights can be better

addressed as there would be lesser staff turn-over26 instead of exerting more training periods

to temporary employees which will waste so much time and effort.

Third is to the State. Status quo reveals the very evident yet futile social division in our

economic and social arena. It is a relationship between the capitalists and the laborers where

the latter depend their fate to the former where in fact, it should be reciprocal. Again, as

enshrined in our Constitution, the State is duty-bound to promote labor and protect the rights

of the workers. Practically speaking, it is vital for the State’s economic interest. Permanent

employment will presumptively enable the State to gain back the confidence of the people in

catering labor necessities. According to former DOLE Secretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, "the

Philippines is moving inexorably towards the development of a culture of voluntary compliance

with labor standards and occupational health and safety that will raise the bar of

competitiveness of the Philippine economy."27 If more people will have regular status, it will be

more profitable for the employees which would augment their purchasing power. Hence, the

26
Master Citizen. The Real Deal on Contractualization or ENDO, (04 August 2016) Retrieved from
<https://mastercitizen.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/the-real-deal-on-contractualization-or-endo/> (20 March
2017).
27
Daniel Rudin. Why Contractualization Should Stop, Rappler (21 March 2014) Retrieved from
<http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/56870-may-day-contractualization-remains-top-labor-topic> (20 March 2017).
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

taxes (both income and excise) that have to be paid to the government would therefore

increase.

Furthermore, the pressing problem of job mismatch leads to higher unemployment.

This is an incidental effect of contractualization since employees usually transfer from one

sector to another sector as may be deemed convenient and accessible to them. For the sake of

statistics, cited Department of Labor and Employment records show that out of the 4.23 million

domestic and international job vacancies offered in all the job fairs in 2014 and 2015, only more

than 391,000 were hired on the spot out of the 1.29 million applicants.28 The presumption,

however, is that the hiring of contractual employees does not necessarily require highly-

specialized skillsas long as one can speak fluently in English, have exceptional interpersonal

skills and the like. More often than not, training and education of the youth do not match the

qualification sought by employers and because of the need to survive in everyday living, they

would resort to any job available which contractualization tolerates. Labor mismatch impacts

the economy in such a way that the time spent pursuing a particular course in college becomes

a futile exercise for the student and brings about an oversupply of talents to a certain

profession which sometimes result to exploitation of our professionals.29

To sum it up, ending contractualization is basically based on the principle of social

justice in labor lawsfor the employees to attain security of tenure and to have a stable source

of income.

28
Jocelyn R. Uy. 1.2M grads may not find jobs due to mismatch between skills needed, training — TUCP,
Inquirer.Net (07 March 2016) Retrieved from < http://globalnation.inquirer.net/137456/1-2m-grads-may-not-find-
jobs-due-to-mismatch-between-skills-needed-training-tucp> (19 March 2017).
29
Jennifer M. Orillaza. Labor mismatch, or what ails the PHL jobs market, GMA News Online (01 May 2014)
Retrieved from <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/359201/money/companies/labor-mismatch-or-what-
ails-the-phl-jobs-market#sthash.LcYx7YbY.dpuf> (21 March 2017)
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

III. PRACTICABILITY

The proposal of complete prohibition of the end of contract (endo) system is practicable

under the following reasons:

First, labor laws and provisions are construed in favor of labor30, under the labor code;

Second, in line with the ASEAN integration, regularization is highly needed; and

Third, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone, without any

discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work31.

Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that:

“ART. 4. Construction in favor of labor. - All doubts in the implementation and

interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules

and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.”32

In carrying out the provisions of the Labor Code and other implementing orders, the

normal laborers’ welfare and interest should be the paramount and primordial consideration.

The policy is to extend the decree’s applicability to a greater number of employees to enable

them to avail of the benefits under the law, in consonance with the State’s duty to maximize aid

and protection to our laborers.

During an employment duration, the employer stands on higher footing than the

employee. As a matter of social justice, the law must protect the laborer, at least, to the extent

30
Article 4, Labor Code of the Philippines
31
Article 23(2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights
32
Supra;
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

of raising his standards of living. These contractual workers are oftentimes, if not always,

employed because of desperate necessity and they are offered no choice for regularization. The

state must shield them from abuses brought about by the necessity for survival.

In a contractual employment, employers have substantially higher bargaining chips

compared to employees. This means that employees are naturally inferior in terms of

successfully stipulating the terms of their employment contract. This is how the abuse of

contractual employment happens: the workers are left with no choice but to accept the terms

of the employment, even if it becomes abusive as to the duration of labor, because they are

compelled by their necessity to survive. The labor laws must provide protection for these

individuals.

As a tool to carry out social justice, the state may validly exercise police power to curtail

the interests of big companies. In the case of DECS v. San Diego33, the Supreme Court has laid

down the two tests of a valid police power: (1) lawful subject and (2) lawful means. The pursuit

of a social justice is an obvious lawful subject. On the other hand, the necessary curtailment of

the bargaining power of employers in contractual employment is justifiable in the pursuit of

protecting the marginalized. The employers may also be validly classified from employees

applying the four requisites of valid classification under the equal protection clause as laid

down in the case of People v. Vera34. Therefore, we can apply a different standard of law to the

employers since they have more leverage and are better privileged compared to the lowly

workers.

33
Department of Education, Culture, and Sports vs. San Diego (GR No. 89572, December 21, 1989)
34
People vs. Vera (GR No. 45685, November 16, 1937)
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

In addition, Art. 1700 of the Civil Code indicates that the relations between capital and

labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor

contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, the state has all the right to regulate such

contracts.

Furthermore, the ASEAN integration visualizes an integrated economic bloc by 2025.

This means that the regional organization aims to transform ASEAN into a region with free

movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labor, and flow of capital.35 Additionally, there

is a trend on hiring a more sustainable and long-lasting workforce across boundaries. Therefore,

the existence of a large population of regular workers are needed to keep up with the

standards.

There are eleven priority integration sectors which are focused by free labor in the

ASEAN integration36. Ten of which revolve around Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs),

which allow for a worker’s skills, experience, and accreditations to be recognized across ASEAN,

permitting them to work outside their home country. These are industries on (1) agro-based

products, (2) fisheries, (3) wood-based products, (4) rubber-based products, (5) textile and

apparel, (6) automotive, (7) electronics, (8) air travel, (9) tourism, and (10) health care. These

industries require regular workers to compete internationally.

In the coming ASEAN integration, the country has to keep up with the rising standards of

competition in the labor market and has to prepare as early as now to survive the competition

in the near future. If contractualization will not be curbed down, the population of regular
35
Towards ASEAN Economic Community 2025: Monitoring ASEAN Economic Integration, p. 4
36
Retrieved from http://www.masa.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=286:the-asean-
integration-and-its-impact-on-labor on March 20, 2017
Affirmative Position Paper (1F)

workers will be insufficient to cover for the free labor from other countries. In order for our

nation to survive, we must generate regular jobs for our countrymen as a training ground and

as a cushion to the effects of the said transitioning from a free labor market brought by the

ASEAN integration. As for the expenses, multilateral development banks will play a much bigger

role by providing additional resources more effectively and flexibly to support growth through

infrastructure development and labor market.37

Also, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Philippines is a

signatory, states that:

“2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for
equal work.”38

This provision is not only confined to gender-based discrimination. The reality of wage

inequality is one that lends itself to global injustice. The inequality also applies to those who

lost the birth lottery, meaning those who are poor and who do not have access to education.

They are granted this same right by the UDHR.

The Universal Declaration of human rights has a legal effect. Though it is not considered

a treaty, the Declaration actually was adopted and implemented for the sole purpose of

redefining the real meaning of human rights and fundamental freedom. Because of this,

Universal Declaration’s a primary constitutive document in the UN. The Declaration is also an

aspect of the customary law and is an extremely powerful tool of applying moral and diplomatic

pressure to the governments that will violate any articles. 39.

37
Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/155993/adbi-wp138.pdf on March 20, 2017
38
Article 23(2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights
39
Retrieved from http://unethiopia.org/universal-declaration-of-human-rights-signatories/ on March 20, 2017