Raising The Standards A Critique of The Salary Standardization Law PDF

1
Table of Contents
II. ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
1. Background of Study ........................................................................................................ 5
A Right Guaranteed to All ................................................................................................ 5
Equal Protection Clause .................................................................................................... 8
Considerations made by the framers of the Constitution ................................................ 11
Importance of a Living Wage ......................................................................................... 13
2. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 15
3. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................... 20
4. Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 21
5. Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 24
6. Scope and Limitation ...................................................................................................... 25
7. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 25
8. Organization of Thesis .................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 02: UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORY OF THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK
OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS GRANTED TO EACH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
................................................................................................................................................. 27
1.The Minimum Wage Law of 1951................................................................................... 27
2.Understanding the Intention of the Framers of Our Constitution .................................... 28
3.Overview of laws that affect government compensation scheme after the 1987
Constitution ......................................................................................................................... 31
The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (SSL 1) ............................. 31
Joint Resolution No. 1 (SSL 2) ....................................................................................... 33
Joint Resolution No. 4 (SSL 3) ....................................................................................... 34
Executive Order No. 201 (SSL4) .................................................................................... 35
4.The Current Framework (SSL 5) ..................................................................................... 36
The Creation of SSL5 ..................................................................................................... 36
Committee Deliberations ................................................................................................ 38
Salary Standardization Law 2019 ................................................................................... 41
Government Policy ......................................................................................................... 42
To whom does the salary law apply? .............................................................................. 43
2
Source of Funding ........................................................................................................... 43

5.Efforts of the Government to Uplift the Lives of Government Employees through
Allowances.......................................................................................................................... 44
6.Judicial Recognition of the Inequitable Treatment Experienced by Government
Employees ........................................................................................................................... 46
Manuel Belarmino v. Employees’ Compensation Commission and Government Service
Insurance System ............................................................................................................ 46
Central Bank (now BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas) Employees Association, Inc., v.
BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas and the Executive Secretary ............................................... 48
7.The dangers that we seek to avoid: An Analysis of the Disparity of Minimum Wage
between Private and Public Sector Employee, The Twenty-two year old growing violation
............................................................................................................................................. 53
CHAPTER 03: MINIMUM WAGES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS THROUGH AN
INTERNATIONAL LENS ..................................................................................................... 59
1.The Minimum Wage Fixing Convention ......................................................................... 59
The General Concept of Minimum Wage and its importance ........................................ 60
2.An overview on how states determine public sector wage .............................................. 62
How does the minimum wage affect public sector wage scales? ................................... 62
How are public sector wages determined?...................................................................... 63
The Approach to Public Sector Wage in the United States ............................................ 70
The Approach to Public Sector Wage of Economically Challenged Countries ............. 71
3.Philippine Law Provisions vs the Minimum Wage Convention ...................................... 75
4.Should there be any obligation on the part of the Philippine government to provide
minimum wage to public sector employees? ...................................................................... 80
The Role of Customary International Law ..................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 04: LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ................................................. 86
1. Minimum Wage .............................................................................................................. 86
2.Avenue for Bargaining..................................................................................................... 91
3.Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 95
CHAPTER 05: RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................. 99
3
II. ABSTRACT
Article XIII, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution states that the state shall afford
full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized and promote full
employment opportunities for all.1 It gave spirit to the government’s obligation to guarantee
various rights of workers such as right to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations and peaceful and concerted activities. The said provision provides that all the
workers are entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage and
that workers shall also participate in policy and decision making process affecting their rights
and benefits as may be provided by law. These set of obligations likewise applies to the
government itself, whenever it is acting in its role as the employer.
Employees are said to be the building blocks of our nation, through their efforts and
hard work we slowly push our nation towards progress and development. As the years go by,
the legislature continuously crafts laws to uphold the rights of workers. With the emergence
of different laws concerning the rights of the workers such as the Kasambahay law, the
proposal to end contractualization and the prohibition against labor only contracting,
government employees remains to be treated as a different class under the Labor Code.
Government employees are treated as a special class, and is governed by the Civil Service Law
and the Salary Standardization Law. In this paper, the proponent would argue that while
government employees are excluded from the application of the Labor Standards provision
under the Labor Code, there should be sufficient safeguards to protectthe government
employee’s righs to a living wage by virtue of the equal protection clause and because Article
XIII, Section 3 does not distinguish in terms of employees right.
In 2020, under the administration of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte , the Salary
Standardization Law (SSL) of 2019 was created. Essentially, SSL 2019 modified the total
compensation framework of government employees from what they have been receiving under
the Previous Salary Standardization Law passed in 2015. Despite of the noticeable increase
in terms of compensation, it cannot be denied that compared to the class of employees under
the Labor Code, the framework fails to into consideration the possible changes especially in
terms of inflation rates during the lengthy period of its application, the law is released and is
made applicable for a period of four years, and it is implemented through four tranches. As it
stands today, the lowest salary under the Salary Standardization Law is still below the
prevailing minimum wage, and such problem has been in existence for twenty-two years
thereby patently violating the employees’ right to a living wage. While for the private sector,
the RTWPB is allowed to issue a wage order once in a given year taking into account the
criteria provided for by law which takes into account the factors of the needs of workers and
their families, the employer’s capacity to pay, comparable wages and incomes and the
requirements of economic and social development. With lack of providing a framework that
takes into account this fundamental right which is guaranteed to all workers, there exists a
violation of the equal protection clause which should be addressed by amending the law. Wage
1
PHIL. CONST. art XIII, §3
4
plays a very important role in the delivery of social justice. Through one’s wage, if adequate,
a person could supply not only his very own needs and wants as a human being, he could also
supply and address the needs of his very own family and share a corresponding contribution
towards his community.
Perhaps, we can visualize social justice as legal equality manifested in freedom from
poverty. Neither does our core understanding of social justice, as formulated above collide
with John Rawls’s “Justice as Fairness”theory. He theorizes, briefly that: “While the
distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyone’s advantage, and
the same time, positions of authority and offices of command must be accessible to all. Article
III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
and property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied equal protection of
laws.
Throughout the years, even before the 1987 Constitution, there has been a continuous
cry for an increase in government salaries. Although writer agrees that there is indeed a
substantial distinction between the workers in the government and private sector, for instance
the private sector operates for profit while the government sector exist to deliver public service,
it is argued that a public worker, in entering the government to serve his fellowmen must not
be divested of constitutionally guaranteed rights and be subjected to more economic burdens
as compared to a worker in a private sector.
The main goal of this thesis is to prescribe a clear, definite and all-encompassing
parameters through a creation of another Salary Standardization Law that takes into
consideration the special needs of government employees, especially with regard to their wage
and its timely adjustment.
5
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION

1. Background of Study
A Right Guaranteed to All
On Dec. 10, 1948, the Philippines became the first signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a milestone document proclaimed by the United
Nations General Assembly in Paris as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and
all nations in human rights. The UDHR, in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) provides that (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment,
to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2)
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone
who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his
family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means
of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the
protection of his interests. 2 With regard to wages, it can be observed that what the law deems
as “just and favourable” should satisfy both the human needs of both the worker himself and
his family. As a signatory, the Philippine government obliged itself to take part in upholding
the abovementioned human rights.
After the UDHR, various states entered into the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, an international human rights treaty that ensures enjoyment of the
mentioned rights including the right to fair and just conditions of work and the right to an
adequate standard of living. Article 6 (Part III) of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (1966) makes a provision for : “…the right to work, which includes
the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work he freely chooses or accepts3.
One’s choice of employment, should not in any manner compromise the guaranteed rights by
2
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 23, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html [accessed 26 June 2020]
3
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-19, 6
I.L.M.360 (1967), 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
6
the Covenant. . The rights to work, an adequate standard of living, housing, food, health and
education, which lie at the heart of the Covenant, have a direct and immediate bearing upon
the eradication of poverty which the covenant ultimately seeks to address. Moreover, the issue
of poverty frequently arises in the course of various constructive dialogues with States parties.
In the light of experience gained over many years, including the examination of numerous
States parties' reports, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights holds the firm
view that poverty constitutes a denial of human rights. 4 Our own government is likewise liable
for contributing to the aggravation of poverty experienced not just by other the other members
of our society, but also by dedicated men working under its employment. In the case of
Belarmino v. Employees' Compensation Commission, the Supreme Court in discussing about
the injustice brought about the denial of death benefits to a public school teacher, the court
itself stated that the Government is not entirely blameless for the teacher’s death for it is not
entirely blameless for her poverty. Government has yet to perform its declared policy "to free
the people from poverty, provide adequate social services, extend to them a decent standard of
living, and improve the quality of life for all (Sec. 7, Art. II, 1973 Constitution and Sec. 9, Art.
II, 1987 Constitution). Social justice for the lowly and underpaid public school teachers will
only be an empty shibboleth until Government adopts measures to ameliorate their economic
condition and provides them with adequate medical care or the means to afford it. 5 The case
recognizes the fact that even the government, in its role as an employer is likewise responsible
for failing to take into account the economic needs of its very own employees who serve the
public, and that the statecontributes to the creation and the worsening of poverty itself.
Throughout the years however, we could see that until this very day, government employees
still suffer from poverty.
In the matter of employment, whether it be in the public or private sector, it cannot be

denied that the employer lies on a higher footing, in exercising its powers and prerogative,
4 Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 10 May 2001 Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Twenty-fifth session, Geneva, 23 April - 11 May 2001, UN Document:
E/C.12/2001/10
5
Belarmino v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 90204, May 11, 1990
7
more often than not, employees play little and a very minimal role.6. In our very own country,
employees subjected to numerous forms of abuse by their employers often seek for laws that
could provide some form of protection. It therefore important to provide for remedies or
methods to balance the interest between the employer and the employees because without
sufficient safeguards, valuable human rights, such as the right to an adequate standard of living
could easily be violated..
Being a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Philippines

subscribes to the fundamental principles on which the ILO is based, and in particular that (a)
labor is not a commodity; (b) freedom of expression and of association are essential to
sustained progress; (c) that poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere;
(d) that war against want requires to be carried on with unrelenting vigor with each nation, and
by continuous and concerted international effort in which the representative of workers and
employers, enjoying equal status with those of governments join with them in free discussion
and democratic decision with a view to the promotion of common welfare. Further, as ILO
member, the Philippines is committed to pursue programs that will achieve certain objectives
including : (a) full employment and the raising of standards of living; (b) policies in regard to
wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the
fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of protection;
(c) the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the cooperation of
management and labour in the continuous improvement of productive efficiency, and the
collaboration of workers and employers in the preparation and application of social and
economic measures; (d) the extension of social security measures to provide a basic income to
all in need of such protection.7 Indeed, we cannot deny the efforts of our government,
throughout the years. It is true that progress with regard to the realization of these rights have
indeed been strongly felt by numerous Filipinos, but its realization should be felt by all, not
only by selected sectors of our society.
6
AZUCENA, JR., supra note 2 at 27
7
8
The Philippines puts primacy to protection of labor as a constitutionally protected right.

We have incorporated the abovementioned international principles into our very own
constitution. Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution makes an enumeration of the
various rights guaranteed to every worker, it includes the right to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work and a living wage and the right of workers to participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. It
reiterates our State’s obligation as ordered by the abovementioned international instruments to
afford protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.8 This command is found in the
1935 Constitution, preserved in the 1973 Constitution as well as in the present 1987
Constitution. 9 The Supreme Court reaffirms its concern for the lowly worker, who often, at
his employer’s mercy, must look up to the laws for his protection. That law regards him with
tenderness and even favour and always in faith and hope in his capacity to help in shaping the
nation’s future. He must not be taken for granted. He deserves abiding respect. How society
treats him determines whether the knife in his hands shall be a caring tool for beauty and
progress or an angry weapon of defiance and revenge. If we cherish him as we should, we must
resolve to lighten “the weight of centuries of exploitation and disdain that bends his back but
does not bow his head.”10
Equal Protection Clause
It is clear under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution that labor and
management are not completely free to decide for themselves how their relationship should go
even in the matter so personal such as wages. 11 Some form of criteria is placed in laws to
balance the interest between the two. Although first paragraph of the article extends the
protective mantle to both workers in public and private sector the rights guaranteed may not
however be the “essentially the same” for all. For instance, the denial of the right to strike to
8
PHIL. CONST. art
XIII, §3
9
10
Abella v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R No. 71812, July 20,1987
11
9
government employees as in the case of Social Security System v. Court of Appeals Apropos,
where the Supreme Court stated that the employees in the civil service may not resort to strikes,
walkouts and other temporary work stoppages, like workers in the private sector, to pressure
the Government to accede to their demands. 12 This recognizes the fact that, the rights
guaranteed by the constitution, may not be equally the same for all, taking into account valid
and compelling state interest in making a classification necessary to serve such interest. In
disallowing the conduct of strike on the part of government employees, the state takes into
account the possible effect of a strike to the delivery of public service in general.
The case of Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Secretary of Education

likewise dwelled on the discussion of whether or not government employees such as public
school teachers are denied the right to strike. The sympathetic dissenting opinion of Justice
Gutierrez, provides us with some enlightenment. He argued that “Teachers need a decent living
wage, one in keeping with the dignity and worth of their profession. Not only are their salaries
unbelievably low but payments is often unreasonably delayed. When the national government
gives a little increase, a corresponding amount is reduced from the city share. Teachers have
to beg for allowances to be restored. The latest examples are the PERA adjustments. As of July
12, 1991, most employees of the government had received and spent their PERA allowances.
Our public school teachers were still waiting. Whatever the payment signifies — salary, bonus,
allowance and even retirement or death benefits — the last one to receive what all government
employees are entitled to, is the public school teacher. It is no small wonder that thousands of
school teachers swallow their dignity and accept employment as domestic servants overseas. I
am not aware of any government program which seeks to reverse the new definition of
"Filipina" as a domestic servant of foreigners whose education is often lower than that of their
maids. Neither am I aware of any determined effort to see to it that schools teachers always get
their salaries, allowances, and benefits on time.”.13 Justice Gutierrez recognizes the fact that
even public sector employees suffer violations of employees rights, especially the right to
12
Social Security System v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105884, June 3, 1993
13
Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 95445, August 6, 1991(J.
Gutierrez)
10
receive a decent living wage. The lack of the capacity to voice out their concerns and to seek
public sympathy , through the right to strike which tool used by private sector employees to
bargain for their rights, forces this class of employees to bargain for the realization of such
right, by “begging” for our government’s consideration.
Justice Gutierrez agreed with the established jurisprudence that that employees in the
civil service may not engage in strikes, walkouts and temporary work stoppages like workers
in the private sector and that government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by
workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers because terms and
conditions of employment are effected through statutes and administrative rules and
regulations, not through collective bargaining agreements. The Justice however argued that
equitable considerations call for compassion. Public school teachers are the most hardworking,
uncomplaining, easy to satisfy, and dutiful segment of our public service. They are also the
most underpaid professionals with a take-home pay of a little over one hundred pesos a
14
day, which is the income of an unskilled laborer. They deserve justice and compassion.
Even the honorable Supreme Court Justice concedes that lack of bargaining tools on the part
of government employees, and appeals for an equitable consideration for compassion.
How about the other rights such provided for under the said article? Rights that have
also been provided not only by our very own Constitution, but rights that have been guaranteed
by the abovementioned international instruments as well? Is the government completely free
from the kind of employer it expects other employers to be? The Supreme Court, in the case
of GSIS v. Velasco, ruled that a government employer must exercise its management
prerogatives and its authority to discipline employees in good faith and in accordance
with the principles of fair play as expected of all employers. The court stated that it will not be
induced into setting a precedent that a government employer can hide behind the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty in spite of evidence of illegal, discriminatory
and oppressive acts against labor extant in the records.15 This case clarifies that the government
14
Id.
15
GSIS v. Velasco, G.R. No. 196564, August 07, 2017
11
itself as an employer is expected to exercise the same diligence and good faith as any other
employer. The presumption of regularity, should not in any way be sufficient excuse in
disregarding one’s fundamental right, such as the right to due process.
Considerations made by the framers of the Constitution

Indeed, for the private sector the government merely exercises its police power,
indeed social justice is the rasiond’etre of labor laws, their basis or foundation is the police
power of the State. It is the power of government to enact laws, within constitutional limits,
to promote order, safety, health, morals and general welfare of the society. 16 For the public
sector employees however, especially in matters affecting their economic rights, the
government exercises its power over the public purse, in providing for the salaries, bonuses
and other benefits to its employees. Since it involves public funds, the government cannot
simply adjust wages, because it affects the national budget in general, and is likewise
subject to the General Appropriation done on a yearly basis.
In fact, the issue with regard to wages has been proven to be much more
complicated, especially in terms of adjusting wages. In fact, during the Constitutional
deliberations, Jose E. Suarez, requested the members of the Constitutional Commission to
study the wisdom and advisability of making adjustments in the salaries of the President,
the Vice-President, the Chief Justice, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
Senators, and other constitutional officers, including Members of the Constitutional
Commissions during their discussion about the provisions to be placed in the transitory
provisions of the Constitution pertaining to salaries.17 This was however subjected to a
heated debate, on Mr. Guingona's observation that it would be improper for Congress to
provide for the salaries of its own Members. Mr. Foz stated that Congress is the
appropriating body but what worries him is the proposed salary scale which involves
millions of pesos for one government position, whereas
lowly government employees have been complaining that their salaries could not make
16
People v. Vera Reyes, G.R No. L-45748, April 5, 1939
17
JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, NO. 101, October 8,1986
12
both ends meet.18 Mr. Lerum reiterates that the fixed salaries as provided for in the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions were not followed because of economic changes.19 It served as a
recognition that throughout the years between the two previous constitutions, the
Philippines underwent through economic changes that more or less made the wage
provided for by the Constitution as a salary cap inequitable and irresponsive to the change
that occurred through the years. He stated that to fix a high salary for the constitutional
officers would make the lowly government employees complain about their low salaries.
He pointed out that the matter should be left to Congress which would provide the budget
of the government.20This dialogue clearly shows that even the framers of our constitution
hesitated to provide a precise wage adjustment for other government employees.
The matter with regard to providing wages for other government employees was
however settled, with an utmost regard to the lives of lowly government employees. On
Mr. Guingona's suggestion to also provide for a minimum salary for the rank and file so
that the original intent would not be a false hope as far as the
lowly government employees are concerned, Mr. Bengzon stated that it is sufficient that
the Body has expressed its intent and it is for the Executive Department or Congress,
whichever has jurisdiction, to take up the matter and implement it. He stressed that the
minimum wage of government employees is not a matter to be stated in the Constitution.
Reacting thereto, Mr. Guingona stated that an increase in the salaries of the highest officials
would not necessarily mean that there would be corresponding increase in the salaries of
the rank and file employees, in reply to which Mr. Bengzon stressed that there is more
leeway in increasing the salaries, except when the government does not have the money,
although, it may go on deficit spending if necessary.21It considered providing an equitable
wage as a matter of great importance, dictating that “budget issues” would not be a
sufficient excuse to provide a wage less than what is equitable or appropriate. The state, as
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id.
13
an employer should even consider going into a deficit spending, if called for by the
circumstances. The Committee resolved the issue by simply providing that
“AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE PERIOD, THE GOVERNMENT SHALL

INCREASE THE SALARY SCALES OF THE OTHER OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT”.22
This was carefully drafted, keeping in mind that salary scales would require a
thorough study of the government .The word “government” was placed, instead of the
initial proposal that it should be “congress” following the argument made by Mr. Rodrigo
that, he does not agree that Congress should set the salary scales of
all government employees. He stressed that while Congress appropriates the money, it is
not Congress that determines the salary scales so that he suggested that the sentence start
with THE GOVERNMENT . . .instead of "Congress . . .". Mr. Foz accepted the amendment
of Mr. Rodrigo. On the query of the Chair as to who fixes the salaries if not Congress, Mr.
Rodrigo stated that each bureau, ministry and department submits to the Budget Minister
the salary plans which the President incorporates in his budget message when he submits
the general appropriations bill for approval by Congress.23 The matter on wages, was
considered to be so important, that the responsibility for crafting a system with regard to
providing salaries, became a responsibility of both the executive and the legislative branch.
Importance of a Living Wage
In discussing the definition of a “family living wage." The Constitutional Commission

explained that this meant a wage that would enable a family to live a dignified life, have its
basic needs fulfilled and have the necessary social services rendered to the family.24|
The word “living wage” could be found in various statutes and jurisprudence. By
looking at the RA 6727 otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act, we see the stardards
or criteria for the minimum wage law for public sector employees. “Demand for a living wage”
22
PHIL. CONST. art XVIII, §18
23
24
R.C.C. No. 092, September 25, 1986
14
is only considered as one of relevant factors in determining what minimum wage is. 25 Aside
from the demand for living wage, the criteria likewise includes other factors that greatly takes
into account the interest of employees, it includes wage-adjustment vis-à-vis the consumer
price index, the cost of leaving and changes or increases therein, the needs of workers and their
families and improvements of the standards of living and the prevailing wages. By reading the
following criteria, it cannot be denied that the right to a “family living wage” is not satisfied
when one earns below minimum wage, because living wage only serves as a component for
determining what “the minimum” should be. Can it therefore be said that there is no violation
on right to a living wage of public sector employees when for decades, the lowest rate under
Salary Standardization Laws was way below the determined “minimum wage”?
The framers of our Constitution took into account the history of our police force,where
there was a time when they were completely fragmented and there was no control by the
national government. Police forces of small towns in the North, like Abra, are paid P20 a month
and the chief of police, P60 a month, which was way below the minimum wage. So that the
only way to give them a living wage is for the enactment of a law where they will be included
in the appropriations act of the government.26 It emphasizes the unfortunate fact that for the
enjoyment of this right, government employees are highly dependent upon the discretion of
the State. It further emphasizes the, that earning below minimum wage means earning an
amount insufficient to constitute as a “living wage”.
In fact, the committee likewise familiar about injustice brought about by the varying
wage increases of government employees. According to Mr.Ople, the committee is of course,
familiar with heroic efforts made by all administrations since the end of World War II to raise
the levels of remuneration for the public school teachers. And it seems that each time they
would do this, they ran into a wall, the wall being that one could not increase the salaries of
25
An Act to Rationalize Wage Policy Determination By Establishing The Mechanism and Proper Standards
Therefor, Amending for the purpose Article 99 of, and Incorporating Articles 120,121,122,123,124,126 and 127
into, Presidential Decree No. 442, As Amended Otherwise Known as The Labor Code of the Philippines, Fixing
New Wage Rates, Providing Wage Incentives For Industrial Dispersal to the Countryside and for Other
Purposes, [Wage Rationalization Act], Republic Act No. 6727, §3
26
R.C.C. No. 097, October 1, 1986
15
teachers without creating similar and reciprocal demands for all the 1,500,000 employees of
the government. And yet, for teachers, it should be somewhat demoralizing that nurses have
won wage increases through the budget; the health workers represented by Commissioner
Quesada, and remuneration for nurses in the government is fully competitive with the
remuneration in the private sector. For teachers, however, this has been a forlorn hope during
all these past several decades.27
The framers of the Constitution, in designating the duty to adjust salary rates therefore
provided the role to both the Congress and the Executive, with a hope that various studies
would be undertaken in order to make necessarily adjustments on how government employees
would be compensated. As the law stands today, even within the government sector itself, there
exist no definite and all encompassing rule that would cover all government employees.
Although there is a “Salary Standardization Law” which essentially provides for standardized
rates for government employees, some government employees experience more benefit as
compared with the others who are left behind an economic hemorrhage because rates for some
employees may adjust according to additional laws enacted by the congress, while some are
left behind to suffer in a system which had long been left in the dark.
2. Statement of the Problem
The Constitution does not distinguish between classes of employees when it talks about
rising standards of living, equal distribution of opportunities and protecting every employees’
rights. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every
unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. Although the law does
not demand that laws be applied in the same manner to all without making any distinctions,
classification must be reasonable and be viewed with an observant eye. To be reasonable, the
classification must rest on substantial distinctions, be germane to the purpose of the law and
27
16
not limited to existing conditions only and that the law applies equally to all the members of
the same class.28
Currently, the law makes a distinction between private and public employees. The
Labor laws, does not apply to government employees. It is important to note that there is a
justifiable difference due to the difference in the powers exercised by the state, as for the private
enterprise, the government merely exercises its police power to ensure compliance with labor
laws and other rules and regulations promulgated by the government, however for the
government employees, the state exercises the power to purse as it involves a far more complex
role, because as an employer, the state disburses public funds.
Although the proponent concedes that there should be a distinction between

government and private employees, these does not exempt the government in its role as an
employer, in exercising the same amount of good faith in its dealings especially when basic
human rights are involved, such as the right to a living wage. The story of constitutional
jurisprudence is the story of great minds striving to strike a balance between governmental
power and personal freedom.29 For the case of government employees, the state must limit
itself in possibly exercising abuse of its power to disregard the rights of its very own
employees. A constitution does not grant powers to the government, a constitution can only
define and delimit them.30Therefore, the constitution in itself, is a sufficient tool in limiting
abuse of governmental power, at the expense of all individuals. As a limitation, the framers
provided that its “the government” that should determine compensation of government
employees, it is an exercise between two branches of government. The power does not reside
in congress alone, despite of the fact that it exercises the power to purse. Employees of the
government, are entitled to the rights provided by the constitution as any other set of employee.
28
People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939
29
30
BERNAS, supra note 29 at 101
17
The reach of the protection of the Constitution when it talks about the right to “life,
liberty and property” touches all persons, be they citizens or aliens, natural or corporate31, this
protection covers government employees who devote their time and efforts into public service.
When the law speaks of property, it includes the right to work and to earn a living.32 The right
to property has an intimate relation with the right to life and liberty. Shylock was right,: “You
take my life, when you do take the means whereby I live.” The Founders of the American
Constitution from which the Philippine due process clause has been lifted, were in fact keenly
aware that protection of property was a primary object of social compact and that the absence
of such protection could well lead to anarchy and tyranny. Moreover, experience does teach a
very clear lesson that property is an important instrument for the preservation and enhancement
of personal dignity. The poor are oppressed precisely because they are poor. In their regard
therefore, property is as important as life and liberty, and to protect their property is really to
protect their life and their liberty.33Since right to property affects the right to life itself, without
observing the Constitution, the rights that the State should guarantee and protect would be
merely an empty letter. The Constitution should serve as a tool to progressively realize the
rights placed in the Bill of Rights.
The government itself demands employers to pay their employees minimum wage and
even created the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) to ensure that
the living wage as determined, would be enough to provide for the needs of every Filipino
family. In determining minimum wage for the private sector, RTWPB considers the needs of
workers and their families which includes the demand for living wage. It also takes into account
wage adjustments vis-a-vis consumer price index, cost of living and changes therein.
As previously stated, when the framers of the Constitution placed “the right to a living
wage” it meant a wage that would enable a family to live a dignified life, have its basic needs
fulfilled and have the necessary social services rendered to the family. “Living wage” itself is
31
Id.
32
National Labor Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, 68 Phil 732 (1939)
33
18
just part and parcel of what the RTWPB takes into account in order to arrive at the minimum
wage. When one speaks of living wage it addresses the abovementioned criteria considered by
RTWPB (1) the demand for a living wage, (2) Consumer Pirce Index (3) Cost of living and
changes therein. If government employees earn less than minimum wage for 22 years, how
then can it be said that they do enjoy their Constitutionally guaranteed right? Should the law
make a distinction when it comes to the realization of such right? The government cannot be
permitted to exercise laxity in complying with its duties as a state and as the employer
according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Convention of Civil
and Political Rights, various jurisprudence and the Constitution. When the Constitution was
created and when the international instruments have been signed, the government obliged itself
to protect the rights of its very own employees in as much as it obliged itself to ensure private
employers to comply with such shared obligation.
In January 2019, around 65.8 percent of the total employed persons were wage and
salary workers. Those who worked in private establishments made up 51.5 percent and those
working in government and government-controlled corporations were accounted at 9.1
percent About 26.2 percent of the total employed persons were self-employed without any paid
employee or those who were engaged in self-employment. The unpaid family workers
made up 4.7 percent and the employer in own family-operated farm or business, 3.3 percent.34
Indeed, it is apparent that most employees choose to enter the private sector, as compared to
the government sector. Taking into account the disparity of the benefits and the compensation,
the reason behind the choice of employment cannot be denied. But does this 9.1 percent
deserve to be protected and should there be a specific framework that protects the rights of this
special class of employees? The proponent argues that there should be such a framework,
throughout the years, Congress continuously develops laws that caters to special classes of
employees, such as the Overseas Filipino Workers and the Kasambahays. It’s about time that
34
Employment Situation in January 2019, available at: http://www.psa.gov.ph/content/employment-situation-
january-2019 (last accessed June 19,2020)
19
the government should step up in ensuring that every class of employees are well protected
through legislation.
It is noticeable that the regard of the government for its own employees became
regressive rather than progressive, clearly this was not the intention of the framers of the
Constitution. Today, the disregard of the rights of employees who risk and sacrifice their lives
for the sake of public service, becomes more and more apparent as the days go by. During the
outbreak of COVID-19, the Department of Health (DOH) has released Department
Memorandum No. 2020-0153 which prescribes interim guidelines for emergency hiring of
health personnel in select hospitals and other health facilities to expand the country’s response
to the COVID-19. Health emergency doctors and healthworkers were outraged at the
Department of Health’s announcement that doctors, nurses, and nursing assistants will be paid
P500 for every 8-hour shift for 14 days,during the "month-long contribution.35It should be
emphasized that as on the date of this announcement, the minimum wage for non-agricultural
workers in the National Capital Region is currently five hundred thirty seven pesos (P537.00).
In a pre-recorded speech, the President of the Philippines, Duterte said that “May
mgadoktorna, mga nurses, attendants, namatay. Sila ‘yungnasawi ang buhay para
langmakatulongsakapwa. Napakasuwertenila. Namataysila para sa bayan. Iyon ang dapat ang
rasonnabakittayomamatay,”.36 “We are thankful for the health care workers who volunteered
their expertise in this COVID-19 battle. Your heroism in the frontlines of the COVID-19
pandemic is an inspiration to the government and to the Filipino people,” Secretary Duque
35
Kristine Sabillo, Doctors, health workers outraged at DOH's P500 daily allowance for COVID-19 hospital
volunteers, available at: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/27/20/doctors-health-workers-outraged-at-dohs-
p500-daily-allowance-for-covid-19-hospital-volunteers (last accessed June 20,2020)
36
Sofia Tomacruz, Duterte draws flak after saying frontliners 'lucky to die' for PH, available at:
https://www.rappler.com/nation/256457-duterte-draws-flak-saying-frontliners-lucky-die-philippines (last
accessed June 20,2020)
20
said.37 These statements provided a preview for how calloused our government is, in taking
into account the rights of its own employees or volunteers. It likewise exposed how it sees
serving the public and dying for the public as an “expected” and “honourable” sacrifice in
order to justify blatant disregard of its obligation under the Constitution and International
Instruments. Previously, we have shared the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that
indeed public service entails some form of sacrifice, but the framers of our fundamental law
considered that government employees have material needs too, as well as their families. It
cannot be denied that the government’s disregard of the rights of the employees to a just and
equitable wage showed during the existence of the pandemic. The government highlighted its
problematic attitude by romanticizing “heroism”, instead of assuring a just compensation,
protection, safety and convenience to the health workers .
In serving the public, does one really waive the rights granted to him by the Constitution
and the international instruments? Is the government excused from complying with the
stringent rules and obligations it imposes to the private sector? In entering the public service
a humble employee is obliged and is expected to exercise utmost diligence; with that, do they
deserve to be treated with a lower standard in terms of compensation and economic benefits?
3. Objectives of the Study
This Study aims:
First, to examine the existing foreign and Philippine laws, jurisprudence, and
international instruments with regard to the rights of government employees and employees
in the private industry.
37
DOH RELEASES INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR EMERGENCY HIRING OF HEALTH PERSONNEL
PRESS RELEASE/12 APRIL 2020, available at: https://www.doh.gov.ph/doh-press-release/DOH-RELEASES-
INTERIM-GUIDELINES-FOR-EMERGENCY-HIRING-OF-HEALTH-PERSONNEL (last accessed June
20,2020)
21
Second, to examine the difference between the two, in terms of basic economic rights
and to provide a legal basis that justifies and criticizes the existing differences.
Third is to amend the Salary Standardization Law applicable to government employees

in order to provide for a new framework of compensation that takes into account inflation rates
and provide an avenue to participate and further negotiate and improve employees’ rights.
4. Significance of the Study
According to John Adams, property is “as sacred as the laws of God”. To deny
protection of property altogether is to invite both anarchy and tyranny. Property has a social
dimension and the right to property is weighted with a social obligation.38 In the explanatory
note of House Bill 3479, entitled “ An Act Adjusting the Salary Schedule of Civilian Personnel
in the Government”, it states that it seeks to improve the purchasing power of approximately
1.42 million civil servants that were eroded by inflation. It even recognized that the adjusted
salary provided by the previous Salary Standardization law is deemed unfair and inadequate
by most government personnel especially those under Salary Grades 1 to 16 which comprise
about 84 percent of the government workforce. 39
In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in
favor of capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more
reprehensible.40Government employees are not spared from this kind of inequality, in fact,
with the lack of the capacity to bargain for their economic rights, the inequality, for government
employees is much more extensive. The Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled
to "humane conditions of work." These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace
— the factory, the office or the field — but include as well the manner by which employers
treat their employees. The Constitution also directs the State to promote "equality of
employment opportunities for all." Similarly, the Labor Code provides that the State shall
38
39
HB 3479, 18th Cong., 1stSess( Aug 06,2019)
40
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 148208, December 15,
2004
22
"ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed." It would be an affront to
both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to
promote and ensure equal employment opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and
discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.41 When the law speaks of “improving the
quality of life for all” it likewise involves the improvement of the right of the employees that
work for the government and its people. Equal opportunity, in its concept involves the right to
equally receive a just and equitable wage.
The government is currently an employer of approximately 1.4 million civilian

government employees. According to Sen. Sonny Angara, chair of the Senate finance
committee, the pay hike will require a total funding of P130.45 billion over four years — a big
but “necessary” commitment. Under Mr. Duterte’s Executive Order 76, which authorized the
SSL, workers with salary grades 1 to 10 will get 17.5 percent to 20.5 percent increase over four
years, while mid-level workers from salary grades 11 to 13 will get the biggest raise of 24.1
percent this year and 30.7 percent in 2023.In absolute amounts, this means, for instance, that
in the case of workers with salary grade 1 who are currently receiving a monthly pay of
P11,068, that amount will rise to P11,551 this year; P12,034 in 2021; P12,517 in 2022; and
P13,000 in 2023.42 But the question is, would this be enough? What kind of standards were
observed? This is a four year commitment on the part of the congress and most importantly,
this is a four year legislation that affects a fundamental right involving salary of government
employees.
The equal protection clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the equality of a

person. The equality it guarantees is “legal equality” or as it is usually put, equality of all
persons before the law. Under it, each individual is dealt with as an equal person before the
law, which does not treat the person differently because of who he is or what he is or what he
possesses. Indeed, it does not deny to the state the power to recognize and act upon factual
differences between individuals and classes. It recognizes that inherent in the right to legislate
41
Id.
42
Still left behind, available at: https://opinion.inquirer.net/126598/still-left-behind (last accessed June 20,2020)
23
is the right to classify.43The Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid
classification, and its policies should be accorded recognition and respect by the courts of
justice except when they run afoul of the Constitution. The deference stops where the
classification violates a fundamental right, or prejudices persons accorded special protection
by the Constitution. When these violations arise, this Court must discharge its primary role as
the vanguard of constitutional guaranties, and require a stricter and more exacting adherence
to constitutional limitations. Rational basis should not suffice.44 It cannot be denied that
providing government employees with a wage less than the amount of minimum wage is
arbitrary and provides no support in the Constitution. The government is necessarily violating
its employees’ rights to a living wage, we must therefore reconcile their interest so that
government employees would attain economic survival and have improvements in terms of
their standards of living. There is no rhyme or reason for the disparity of obtaining minimum
wage over the years, a rank and file employee in the government, should necessarily receive a
guaranteed minimum wage to a rank and file employee employed in the private sector in
compliance to the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a living wage.
The right to humane conditions of work, is a Constitutionally guaranteed right for all
workers, not only to the workers of the private sector. It cannot be denied that the disparity in
rights is further showed by the absence of a government employees’ right to strike. In the
absence of a right to strike, which is recognized by jurisprudence as the most powerful weapon
of workers in their struggle with management in the course of setting their terms and conditions
of employment 45, the right of every government employee to speak up against government
oppression is curtailed. Other than the right to strike, indeed other avenues are present to
possibly redress their grievances such as the right to enter into unions and worker’s association,
but with the express limitation provided for by law in relation to wages and economic benefits,
such right seems to be an empty letter. The proponent does not claim that labor laws should
43
44
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 148208, December 15,
2004
45
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC, 248 SCRA 95, 104-105 September 7, 1995,
24
equally apply to all. The proponent argues that there should likewise be a framework for the
public sector employees, that observes specific standards to ensure that the rights of
government employees are carefully taken into account and a framework that restrains the
government from possibly abusing its discretion in terms of providing an equitable wage,
especially for lowly government employees.
At the risk of being repetitive, it is emphasized that it is perhaps timely that after
recently crafting laws that protects various classes of employees such as the Kasambahay and
the Overseas Filipino Workers, that the government should finally step up and craft laws in
order to promote the rights of its very own employees and prevent itself from abuse of
discretion. Afterall, the protective mantle of the Constitution applies to all kinds of employees
whether it be employees in the public and private sector.
5. Definition of Terms
1. Employer - includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an

employer in relation to an employee and shall include the government and all its
branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all government-owned or controlled
corporations and institutions, as well as non-profit private institutions, or
organizations.46
2. Employee- includes any individual employed by an employer.
3. Wage- paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however
designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained
on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same,
which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract
of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered
and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and
46
A Decree Instituting a Labor Code thereby Revising and Consolidating Labor and Social Laws to Afford
Protection to Labor, Promote Employment and Human Resources Development and Insure Industrial Peace
Based on Social Justice [LABOR CODE], (b),Presidential Decree No. 442 as amended.
25
Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the

employer to the employee. "Fair and reasonable value" shall not include any profit to
the employer, or to any person affiliated with the employer.47
4. Living Wage - wage that would enable a family to live a dignified life, have its basic
needs fulfilled and have the necessary social services rendered to the family.48
5. Basic Pay - primary cash compensation for work performed, excluding any other
payments, allowances and fringe benefits.49
6. Scope and Limitation
The thesis will mainly cover the situation of public sector and private sector employees’
rights in the Philippines by studying its basis, origins and development.
This will also tackle laws and jurisprudence in the Philippines, together with the
international instruments which Philippines took part of. This would also made an examination
of the current approach of various states with regard to the subject matter.
This thesis will provide a general overview of the compensation scheme of government
employees in the national level. This will particularly focus on the statutory basis of the regular
compensation package of government employees which is the Salary Standardization Law.
The thesis will limit itself to the basic salaries received by government employees .
7. Methodology
This thesis will first provide a discussion on the importance of attaining a just and
equitable wage and the necessity of according such right to government employees. It will then
discuss the need to balance the government and the government employees’ rights and
obligations.
47
LABOR CODE, art 97 (f)
48
49
Department of Budget Management, The Compensation Plan, available at: https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-3.pdf
26
This study will utilize prevailing laws and jurisprudence to analyze Salary
Standardization Law. It shall also examine the law’s legislative history and congressional
deliberations. A study would likewise be made in relation to the compensation packages of
other neighbouring countries and the laws that are applied to both government and private
sector.
After laying the foundations set by laws, jurisprudence, international instruments and
credible studies, this thesis will then discuss and argue that there should be sufficient standards
in order to protect the constitutional right of government employees to a just and equitable
wage.
Eventually, this thesis will conclude and recommend that there should be a framework
that would take into account the protection of every government employee’s right, that the
government should take into account the disparity of the living wage per region and that there
should be a sufficient avenue in order to accurately determine what the just compensation.
8. Organization of Thesis
This is divided into five parts. The first part is the Introduction, which provides the
necessary framework for the issue. The second part will discuss about the History and
Origins of the Salary Standardization Law, and the current Salary Standardization Law.
The third part will discuss about the framework of salary standardization in various
countries and the various studies as to how the rights of the employee from different
sectors could be balanced out when it comes to a just and equitable wage. The forth
part will be a comparative review of the framework for private sector and public
sectoremployees , and the jurisprudential acknowledgement of the inequality that
affect private sector employes. Finally, the thesis will provide for a legal analysis,
recommendation and a conclusion.
27
CHAPTER 02: UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORY OF THE

CURRENT FRAMEWORK OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS
GRANTED TO EACH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
In this Chapter, the proponent would provide a general overview of the origins behind
the Salary Standardization Law 2019. Understanding the legislative history of the current law
generally applied to government employees is essential to further appreciate how the
realization of the employees’ rights have been felt throughout the years. Providing the intent
of the framers of the Constitution would likewise play an important role in analyzing the
compliance of the law makers regarding the requirements as provided for by under our
Constitution.
1.The Minimum Wage Law of 1951
It is plausible, that prior the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code, legislators
considered the“minimum wage” as a right guaranteed to both private and public sector
employees. The Minimum Wage Law, covered in its definition of an employer, the government
and government corporations. 50 In essence, the law provides that every employer shall pay to
51
each employee a specific minimum wage. For the purposes of providing minimum wage,
the law did not distinguish as to who the employer is, it provided that minimum wage which
shall be established, shall be nearly adequate is economically feasible to maintain the minimum
standard of living necessary for the health, efficiency, and general well-being of employees. It
even provided for relevant factors that the Secretary of Labor and the Wage Board should
consider adjusting the rates set forth therein. It included (1) the cost of living, (2) wage
established for work of like or comparable character by collective agreements or arbitration
awards, (3) the wages paid for work of like or comparable character by employers who
voluntarily maintain reasonable standard; and (4) fair return of capital invested.
50
An Act to Establish a Minimum Wage Law, and For Other Purposes [Minimum Wage Law], Republic Act
No. 602, §2
51
Republic Act No. 602, §3
28
Jurisprudence in relation to the Minimum Wage Law, highlighted the effects of

providing salaries less than the wage prescribed by the law. According to People v. Gatchalian,
while Section 3 of the said law does not state that it shall be unlawful for an employer to pay
his employees wages below the minimum wage but merely requires that the employer shall
pay wages not below the minimum wage, Section 15 of the same Act imposes both a criminal
penalty for a willful violation of any of the provisions of the law and a civil liability for any
underpayment of wages due an employee.52 Although the Supreme Court discussed that
“officials of the government entrusted with the enforcement of the law do not come under the
penal clause.” because it is understandable that the State may not be held criminally liable, the
court however emphasized that despite of such fact, liability should still arise in case the
government any provisions of the Minimum Wage Law.The failure of government officials to
comply would subject them to administrative sanction.53 The case, highlighted the fact that the
main objective of the law is “to provide for a rock-bottom wage to be observed and followed
by “all employers.” The case reiterated that the legislation conceived in the lofty purpose of
protecting labor and giving it a living wage.54
2.Understanding the Intention of the Framers of Our Constitution

The adjustment of government officials and employees are indeed important, as
provided in the earlier chapter, even the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to
incorporate in its provisions the obligation of the government to increase the salary scales of
other officials and employees of the National government after discussing the salary cap of
high ranking government officials such as the President, the Vice President, the Members of
Congress and the Members of the Supreme Court. The relatively low salary of these high
ranking officials had served as cap on the possibility of the upward movement of the salary of
lower officials. Since, however, the readjustment of the salaries of the vast army of lower
officials would need more study, the matter, although needing urgent attention was left by the
52
People v. Gatchalian, G.R Nos. L-12011-14, September 30,1958
53
Id.
54
Id.
29
Constitution to ordinary legislation, but with the command that it be attended to at the earliest
possible time.55
Although the framers of the Constitution purposely did not include a specific wage for
other government employees, it did not necessarily mean that it is a matter of less importance.
In fact, the very reason behind it, is the fact that it requires a more thorough and diligent study.
As previously mentioned in the first chapter, framers placed such obligation to two branches
of our government, the executive and the legislative. Did the framers of the Constitution intend
that government employees should have a different rate of minimum wage? Did the framers
divert from the principles incorporated under the Minimum Wage Law? The proponent argues
that it did not. According to Mr.Ople, “there must be a movement of salaries for the lowest
paid government employees by applying the minimum wage law”. 56
During the deliberations, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 expressed

appreciation of the introduction and approval of several provisions which are believed to
promote not only the welfare and interest of the poor and the underprivileged sectors of the
society, but also provisions with regard to the economic benefits of government employees.
Mr. Bengzon himself explained that although public service would mean some sacrifice, public
servants also have their material needs and should be compensated taking into account the
increasing cost of living in the Philippines. 57This is a very important statement, because it
signifies that public service does not entail any form of sacrifice or waiver of Constitutionally
guaranteed rights and that increasing cost of living should directly affect the process of crafting
laws pertaining to salaries of public servants.
Although the main concern of the session is the discussion of whether or not the salaries
of high ranking officials should be incorporated in the Philippine Constitution, several
members of the Constitutional Commission, such as Mrs.Quesada shared a view that
increasing the salaries of high ranking government officials would give lowly government
55
56
Journal of the Constitutional Commission, Journal 101, October 6,1986
57
Journal of the Constitutional Comission No. 101, October 6, 1986
30
employees a glimmer of hope that perhaps there could be a room in order to increase their
salaries as well.58 Although Mr.Bengzon pointed out that salaries of government employees
could not just be increased because of certain ceilings in higher positions and with the proposal,
the salaries of the rank and file could be properly adjusted. The Constitutional Commission
refused to incorporate in the Constitution itself a specific rate of increase of other government
employees, but Mr.Begzon affirmed that one of the reasons for the proposal is to effect salary
increases for rank and file employees. Mr.Guingona suggested providing for a minimum salary
for rank and file employees so that the original intent of the framers would not be false hope
as far as lowly government employees are concerned. However Mr.Bengzon stated, and it was
further agreed upon by the other members of the Constitutional Commission that it is sufficient
that the Body has expressed its intent and it is for the Executive Department or the Congress,
whichever has jurisdiction to take up the matter and implement it.59
In terms of the issue that increasing the salaries of the government officials could
impact the overall government expenditure, the journal of the Constitutional Commission
likewise provided a view on how the framers valued providing a just and equitable wage to
government employees despite of the possible impact to the government’s budget in general.
Mr.Rama stated that the Body takes into account the present economic difficulties, the low
salaries of other government employees and the government’s policy on
austerity.60Mr.Quesada even underscored that if the government would always have deficit
spending, he would prefer that it be on the salaries of government employees and officials in
order to give them an incentive to serve better. In crafting the law, several members of the
Constitutional Commission recognized that the government officials should be motivated not
by monetary considerations but by the desire to serve, but there was a humanitarian approach
that although public service would entail some form of sacrifice, public servants likewise have
their very own material needs.61 Every government employee, work day by day to serve a
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id.
31
people, but at the end of each working day, they too have families to feed and other economic
burdens to carry. The framers of the Constitution recognized that if the salaries of government
officials are increased, people would have every reason to expect better service, better honesty
and integrity from the said officials.62This provided for a generous rather than an inconsiderate
approach with regard to the impact of increasing salaries to our public spending, it even viewed
uplifting the right to an adequate wage as an improtant tool for improving public service.
3.Overview of laws that affect government compensation scheme after the 1987
Constitution
The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (SSL 1)
In 1989, the Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. The policy behind the law is for the
state to provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon
substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the
positions. In determining rates of pay, due regard shall be given to, among others, prevailing
rates in the private sector for comparable work.63
In crafting the said law, the congress greatly considered the principles of having a just
and equitable payment. With a due regard to lower level positions, the said law even stated that
“while pay distinctions must necessarily exist in keeping with work distinctions, the ratio of
compensation for those occupying higher ranks to those at lower ranks should be maintained
at equitable levels, giving due consideration to higher percentage of increases to lower
positions and lower percentage increases to higher level positions”. 64This is a plausible
provision, because it can be seen that the intention and of the framers of the Constitution with
regard to lowly government employees was greatly taken into account. Indeed, due regard is
62
Id.
63
An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For
Other Purposes ,[Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989], Republic Act 6758, §2
64
Republic Act 6758 §3
32
given especially to those employees who receive the lowest amount of compensation for public
service.
With regard to minimum wage itself, the general provision of the said law that the basic
compensation for all personnel in the government and government-owned or controlled
corporations and financial institutions shall be generally be comparable with those in the
private sector doing comparable work, and must be in accordance with the prevailing laws on
minimum wages.65This echoes the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that the wage
of lowly government employees should likewise adjust with the prevailing minimum wage.
Likewise, the same provision of the law provides that there should be a periodical review of
government compensation rates, taking into account possible erosion in purchasing power due
to inflation and other factors.66 These general provisions provided for under Section 3 of the
said law, follow the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and highlights the concern of the
congress with regard to low level employees, that they are too are not spared from economic
changes in relation to the rising standards of living . It takes into account that minimum wage
laws in general, should likewise be applied to government employees as they too are affected
by inflation in terms of the prices of goods and services.
The law provided for a salary schedule which shall be used for positions that are paid
on an annual or monthly rate basis, and the Department of Budget and Management was given
the authority to update the schedule whenever there are across-the-board salary adjustments as
67
may be provided for by law. The law likewise took into consideration possible impacts of
pay adjustments, it provided as a general rule that if an employee is moved from a higher to a
lower class, he shall not suffer a reduction in salary. The only exception would be whenever
the pay reduction results from a disciplinary action or a voluntary demotion.68 This highlights
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
68
33
the fact that employees are entitled to the amount of wage that he receives, it ripens into a right
that should be protected by law and it cannot as a general rule be diminished.
Despite of the noble intents of the framers of the law, it is unfortunate that the law was
not properly implemented and wages of government employees weren’t adjusted for quite a
long period of time, despite of the plausible intent behind the law, it remained to be an empty
promise. The realization of the right to a living wage was put into halt due to the inaction on
the part of the government in terms of considering economic changes and its overall effect in
providing an equitable wage.
Joint Resolution No. 1 (SSL 2)

In 1994, the Congress recognizing the fact that pay rates of the government personnel
have not been adjusted since 1989 with respect to civilian employees and since 1987 with
respect to uniformed personnel of the Department of National Defense (DND) and the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) made Joint Resolution No.1.69 The
congress took into consideration that the update is necessary in order to make the salary rates
responsive to the economic needs of government personnel in order to provide an adequate
incentive to public servants and improve the quality of public services.70
The policy behind the resolution, embodied the original intent of the framers of the
Constitution, that increasing salary rates would not only uplift the lives of dedicated
government employees who serve the public, it likewise serves as an avenue in order to
improve the overall quality of public service that would be beneficial to the nation. The
Congress deemed the adjustment to be an urgent matter, taking into account the pressing
economic difficulties experienced by government employees. In order to expedite the process,
through the efforts of the Office of the President, the Senate and the House of Representative
a committee was created in order to make the appropriate salary adjustments. 71It is important
69
Joint Senate-House of Representatives Resolution Urging the President of the Philippines to Revise the
Existing Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and to Implement the Same
Initially Effective January 1,1994, Joint Resolution No. 01, 2nd Reg. Sess (1994)
70
Id.
71
Id.
34
to reiterate that the framers of the Constitution originally intended there should be a joint effort
on the part of the legislative and executive, with regard to their important task of determining
compensation.
Joint Resolution No. 4 (SSL 3)

In 2008, during the term of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, another joint resolution
was entered upon by the Congress, recognizing their Constitutional duty as provided for by
Section 5, Article IX-B which states that the congress shall provide for the standardization of
compensation of government officials and employees. It recognized that the compensation and
position classification system has to be further revised in order to update it to further encourage
excellent performance and productivity among government officials and employees, it likewise
recognized the problem that inequities were created by the overlapping salary grades.72
The joint resolution expressed the strong sentiment of the Senate and the House of
Representatives that the modification should be in line with the governing principles which
includes the principle that all government personnel shall be paid a just and equitable
compensation in accordance with the principle of equal pay for equal work. It likewise
provided that the compensation for all civilian personnel shall generally be comparable with
those in the private sector doing comparable work in order to attract, retain and motivate a
corps of competent civil servants. 73
It should be noted that as compared to the previously mentioned law and joint
resolution, this joint resolution provided for a certain period within which a periodic period
should be made. It provided that the periodic review of the compensation and position
classification system shall be conducted every three years, taking into account the changes in
skills and competency requirements in the bureaucracy, the relative demand for certain
expertise, the possible erosion in purchasing power due to inflation and other factors. 74 It
72
Joint Senate and House of Representatives Resolution Authorizing the President of the Philippines to Modify
the Compensation and Position Classification System of Civilian Personnel and the Base Pay Schedule of
Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government and For Other Purposes, Joint Resolution No. 4, 2nd Reg.
Sess (2008)
73
Id.
74
Id.
35
however echoes the principle embodied by the framers of the Constitution that the
compensation for government personnel shall be kept fair and reasonable in recognition of
fiscal realities.75Putting a specific period, provided both the Government and its employees a
legal timeline within which salaries would be reviewed and possibly adjusted.
The rates of increase were however controversial, in the said resolution, Salary Grades
1 to 9 received 28%-36% increase, Salary Grades 10 to 24 received 38% to 100% increase and
those in the executive category received 71% to 142% increase. Analyzing the rates of increase,
it no longer embodied the earlier mentioned principle in R.A 6758 which provided that “the
ratio of compensation for those occupying higher ranks to those at lower ranks should be
maintained at equitable levels, giving due consideration to higher percentage of increases to
lower positions and lower percentage increases to higher level positions. ”76
Executive Order No. 201 (SSL4)

After the Congress failed to approve the bill that would give government workers wage
increase, Executive Order No. 201 was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III. By
virtue of the powers vested in him, the president revised the Compensation scheme for the
government employees, reiterating the principle that the government shall ensure that the
compensation structure of the government personnel shall be comparable with the prevailing
rates in the private sector in order to attract and retain competent and committed civil servants.
In essence, SSL 2015, will increase the salaries and benefits 1.53 million government
personnel. The Compensation and Benefits Study for the Public Sector Survey was carried out
by the Department of Budget Management pursuant to its mandate to administer the
77
compensation and position classification system of the government. DBM compared the
competitiveness of government pay in relation to the private sector and crafted a compensation
strategy to bring government pay closer to market rates.
75
Id.
76
77
Department of Budget management, FAQs SSL 2015, available at : https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/SSL2015/FAQs%20SSL%202015%20as%20of%2011.24.2015.pdf (last accessed August
1,2020)
36
As compared to the previously mentioned law and joint resolutions, the executive order
provided a provision that “the compensation adjustment should bring the compensation of
government personnel close to their private counterparts to “at least 70% of the median of the
market for all salary grades”.78 Somehow, it recognized the fact that the government may not,
with its limited funds may not be able to be at par with the private sector in terms of providing
compensation and benefits to their very own employees. Injustice and inequity however arises
because this was not the intent of the framers of our Constitution. They did not intend that
government employees should receive a considerably less amount. This however did not affect,
lower salary grade employees, (salary grades 1 to 10) matches or even exceeds those of their
private sector counterparts. However, the gap between private and public sector widens as one
moves up the ladder. The Salary Schedule was implemented in four (4) tranches, which shall
be implemented starting January 1,2016 up to January 1,2019.
4.The Current Framework (SSL 5)

The Creation of SSL5
In order to carefully analyze a law, it is important to understand the intent and wisdom
of its framers. The current Salary Standardization Law came from three bills that were referred
to the Committee on Civil Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation,
the first is Senate Bill No. 49, introduced by Senator Ralph Recto, the second is Senate Bill
No. 200, introduced by Senator Christopher “Bong” Go and the latest being Senate Bill No.
1006 of Senator Recto.79 Analyzing the origin of the current law and its discussions would
provide us a view on what are or what have been the matters that have been truly taken into
account into crafting the law, since the law itself does not expressly state the standards that
would are to be observed in its implementation.
78
Office of the President, Modifying the Salary Schedule for Civilian Government Personnel and Authorizing
the Grant of Additional Benefits for Both Civilian and Military and Uniformed Personnel, Executive Order No.
201, Series of 2016, [E.O 201, s.2016], (Feb 19,2016)
79
Committee on Civil Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation Joint with The
Committees on Basic Education, Arts and Culture; Higher, Technical and Vocational Education; Ways and
Means and Finance, Senate Committee Deliberation on the Salary Standardization Law 2019, September
10,2019
37
According to the explanatory note of the Senate Bill No.49 introduced by Senator
Recto, the bill seeks to improve the purchasing power of approximately 1.42 million civil
servants in the country that was eroded by inflation by providing increase in the salary of
government officials and employees. The bill aims to attract and retain competent and
committed civil servants and promote performance-based work among the public sector
workers. It recognizes that the adjusted salary under the previous salary standardization law is
deemed unfair and inadequate by most government personnel especially those under Salary
Grades 1 to 16 which comprises about 84 percent of the government workforce. The bill
mandates a three year salary increase for government officials and employees at 10% of basic
salary per year. The first tranche of the salary adjustment will be implemented on January
1,2020 and every January 1 thereafter until the final tranche in 2022. It is noticeable that with
the 10% salary increase across the board, government employees would indeed be receiving a
salary that is above the prevailing minimum wage. Under the first tranche, employees under
Salary Grade 1 would receive a monthly salary of Twelve Thousand One Hundred Seventy
Five Pesos (Php 12,175), while the highest salary grade which is Salary Grade 33 would
receive a salary amounting to Four Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Six Pesos
(Php 426,906).80
In Senate Bill No. 200, the bill which is introduced by Senator Go, the explanatory note
provides that the government is the backbone of a civilized society. The bill seeks to address
the need to provide Filipinos a sound and convincing reason to remain in the country, pursue
a fruit career in civil service and hopefully, choose to stay in such path. The legislative measure
does not singularly aim to benefit those who are already in service. Due regard is also given to
the pressing need to attract the best and most highly qualified public servants possible. 81 The
bill explicitly states under Section 2 that the Compensation and Position Classification System
(CPCS) is hereby revised or updated to conform with (b) raising the minimum salary for Salary
80
An Act Adjusting the Salary Schedule of Civilian Personnel in Government and for Other Purposes,
Explanatory Note, S.B No. 49, Eighteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines 1st Regular Session
(2019)
81
An Act Modifying the Salary Schedule for Civilian Government Personnel, Explanatory Note, S.B No. 200,
Eighteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, 1st Regular Session (2019)
38
Grade 1 from the current rate of Eleven Thousand Sixty Eight Pesos (Php 11,068) to Eleven
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six Pesos (Php 11,656) to make the current CPCS even more
competitive with the market rates.82 The amount as proposed is still below the prevailing
minimum wage in NCR, which is Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Fourteen Pesos (Php
11,814). As compared to the other bills proposed, this bill only provides for a one time
implementation (1 year).
In Senate Bill No. 1006, a bill that is likewise introduced by Senator Recto, the bill
mandates the implementation of salary increases for government officials and employees in
accordance with salary schedules for three (3) tranches. The salary increase is equivalent to an
across the board annual ten percent increase for three (3) years plus an additional total of Ten
Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000) in the basic monthly salary spread in three years. The bill aims
to alleviate the living conditions of the 1.4 million public servants. Consequently, the much
needed relief that the measure offers will motivate government personnel and invigorate public
service.83 Analyzing the Schedule of Salaries, under this bill, Salary Grade 1 employees, on
the first tranche would receive an amount of Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five
Pesos (Php 15,475), an amount way above the prevailing minimum wage. 84
Committee Deliberations
We now analyze the committee deliberations that took place in the Senate in order to
further analyze the wisdom behind the law. It should be noted that as the law stands today, the
salary schedule is applied in four tranches applicable from January 2020 up to January 2023.In
terms of salary rate, the increase of salaries proposed by the three bills were likewise not
followed. When asked to comment about the bills introduced, Director Encajonado of the Civil
Service Commission made mention that as compared to the proposal of Senator Go, Senator
Recto’s proposal is more viable because it will be implemented in three tranches. Senator Go’s
82
S.B No. 200, §2
83
An Act Increasing the Salary Schedule of Civilian Personnel in the Government, and for Other Purposes,
Explanatory Note, S.B No. 1006, Eighteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, 1st Regular Session
(2019)
84
S.B No. 1006 §4
39
proposal was a one shot deal.85 Director Encajonado reiterated that Senator Recto’s proposal
is more favorable to government employees because under the Constitution, Congress is
actually required to, from time to time determine the right compensation for people in
government, and with the rising prices of goods and commodities, there is really a need for
timely adjustment of wage rates. Department of Budget Management Undersecretary Lloyd
Christopher Lao propounded that DBM has already incorporated 31.1 billion under
Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Funds for the Fiscal Year 2020. Usec. Lao however agreed
that such amount would not be sufficient to cover possible salary adjustments for the first year
of implementation of the Salary Standardization Law and even recognized that for 2019, the
budget lacked an amount of 20 billion pesos but guaranteed that DBM could definitely find
some allocation for 2020. DBM Usec Lao was likewise in favor of Senator Recto’s proposal
which was to be implemented in three tranches.86
The Salary increase under Senator Recto’s proposal would increase salary rates of
government employees to about 10 % on the first tranche, 21 % on the second tranche and 33%
on the third and last tranche. Senator Go’s proposal would have a 0.5% increase for the salary
grade 1 employee. Raymond Basillo, Secretary General of Alliance of Concerned Teachers
raised his concern about the salary increase and asked if the Senate could give priority in
increasing the salaries of lowly government employees who were burdened by low salary rates
due to the issues of previous SSLs. He propounded that an increase of 10% would be barely
address the concerns of government rank and file employees. Senator Revilla however clarified
that under Senator Recto’s proposal,10% would be an across the board increase to all
government employees, not specifically focusing on rank and file employees. Director
Encajonado, unfortunately stated that the Commission (CSC) has not yet undergone such form
of study that will help the government retain talent. Robert Mendoza, the National President
of Alliance for Health Workers stated that they are demanding that there should be at least
85
Committee on Civil Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation Joint with The
Committees on Basic Education, Arts and Culture; Higher, Technical and Vocational Education; Ways and
Means and Finance, Senate Committee Deliberation on the Salary Standardization Law 2019, September
10,2019
86
40
sixteen thousand pesos (Php 16,000) national minimum wage for Salary Grade 1, in order to
address the poverty issues of those working in the government with the lowest amount of salary
rate, in recognition of the fact that most employees are very resort to huge amount of debts in
order to make both ends meet. He pointed out that under Senator Go’s proposal, the increase
would only be twenty pesos (Php 20) a day, an amount that may not be enough to address the
increasing prices of goods and commodities. He emphasized that currently, their net take home
pay cannot even take them home. Senator Revilla recognized the problem experienced by
Salary Grade 1 employees, and recognized that even if there’s any increase, it may not be
enough and sufficient to address their economic needs. 87Annie Geron, the President of Public
Services Labor Independent Confederation, propounded that they are somewhat in favor of
Senator Recto’s first Senate Bill, which is S.B No. 49, but recommended that it should be in
one tranche only. The issue, according to Ms.Geron with regard to the three tranche
implementation is related to the increasing prices of commodities, inflation and expenses of
government employees which doesn’t occur in annual tranche. She propounded that the impact
of increases, however meager, are further diminished and hardly felt by government employees
because the spread is three years. She strongly recommended for full participation of most
representative public sector union, federation and confederation together with both the DBM
and CSC in reviewing Classification System every two years; develop and recommend to the
President a competitive compensation and remuneration system which shall attract and retain
talent. Senator Villanueva however propounded that based on legislative history, it cannot be
denied that when matters relate to compensation, benefit and benefits, “asahan na po nating
talagang dadaan sab utas ng karayom [ng mga taga-DBM]. The Senator is however views that
whether public or private sector, he believes that when workers are adequately compensated,
their customers and stakeholders will be more satisfied with the services that they receive. He
recognized that certainly the government has to make government work better and one way to
do that is through increase in salaries and benefits. 88
87
Id.
88
Id.
41
The Chairperson, Senator Gatchalian however enlightened the Senate with a vision of
how determination of wage should come about. He invited everyone to step backward in order
to understand fully the whole rationale of increasing salaries of civil Servants. He stated that
he was a big fan of Singapore’s model in granting incentives, salaries and performance
bonuses. In fact, yearly, Singapore has a periodic review and their benchmark for their civil
servants are multinational companies. The logic behind this act of the government of
Singapore, according to the Senator is due to the fact that the government itself wants its own
civil servants to be competitive, and giving them high benefits and satisfying salaries would
mean making them choose to work for the government instead of opting to work for
multinational companies. Senator Gatchalian wants the committee and the senate itself to
understand where we are vis-à-vis the private sector, vis-à-vis the multinational companies,
vis-à-vis the ASEAN, recognizing the fact that today, manpower is very mobile. As the
government, we are not only competing with private sector in the Philippines, but we are also
competing with the private sector outside of the Philippines. He encouraged that the Senate
and the committee should be scientific in the approach of increasing salaries so that the
government could demand more because we have to look at the bigger picture than just the
government as it is.89
The first question which has been propounded during the Senate Hearing was the
question of Senator Revilla asking “Do we have the necessary budget for the timely
implementation of the proposal?” Despite of the plausible discussions taken into account
during the Committee Deliberations, until the very end of the session, this has been the most
propounded question, it emphasizes the fact that although the framers recognize the importance
of giving necessary wage increase, they are restricted by economic considerations.
Salary Standardization Law 2019

In January 8,2020 President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law Republic Act 11466
otherwise known as “Salary Standardization Law of 2019”. With the enactment of the said
law, salary schedules of government workers will be increased in four (4) tranches every
89
Id.
42
January, starting 2020 until 2023. The law generally benefits government workers with Salary
Grades 11 to 13 as their salary increases ranges from 24.1% to 30.7% . The law also increases
the minimum salary from P11,068, that amount will rise to P11,551 this year; P12,034 in 2021;
P12,517 in 2022; and P13,000 in 2023 in order to remain competitive with the minimum wage
90
in the National Capital Region. It is noticeable that just like the previous salary
standardization law, the period of applicability of this present law would be for a period of
four years despite of the earlier consideration of shortening the period to three years. Likewise,
despite of the consideration made in relation to the compensation of private sector counterparts,
the wage, for public sector employees as it stands today, still falls below the minimum wage
in the National Capital Region. Another thing to point out is despite of the pleas to give the
largest amount of increase to employees with the lowest salary grades, which was a matter
greatly taken into account by the framers of the Constitution and the members of the Senate
during the deliberations of the current SSL, the greatest increase was provided to salary grades
11 to 13.
Government Policy
The policy behind the Salary Standardization Law is to provide all government
personnel a just and equitable compensation in accordance with the principle of equal pay for
work of equal value. Accordingly, the law provides that in pursuing the said policy, the state
will ensure that (a) Differences in pay shall be based upon substantive differences in duties,
responsibilities, accountabilities and qualification requirements of positions, (b) compensation
for all civilian government personnel shall be standardized and rationalized across all
government agencies to create an enabling environment that will promote social justice,
integrity, efficiency, productivity, accountability and excellence in the civil service, (c) the
compensation of all civilian personnel shall be generally competitive with those in the private
sector doing comparable work in order to attract, retain and motivate a corps of competent and
dedicated civil servants (d) A performance based incentive scheme which intergrates personnel
and organizational performance shall be established to reward exemplary civil servants and
90
Still left behind, available at: https://opinion.inquirer.net/126598/still-left-behind (last accessed June 20,2020)
43
well-performing organizations. (e) The compensation scheme shall take into consideration the
financial capability of the government and shall give due regard to the efficient allocation of
funds for personnel services, which shall be maintained at a realistic level in proportion to the
91
overall expenditure of the government. It is noticeable, that as compared to E.O 201, the
current law did not provide a certain percentage for the comparability of government
employees’ wage to the wage of employees belonging in the private sector. It is however
unfortunate that the policy behind the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989,
with regard to having a wage that must be in accordance with the prevailing laws on minimum
wages, was no longer incorporated in the current Salary Standardization Law.
To whom does the salary law apply?

The Salary Standardization Law applies to all civilian government personnel in the
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, Constitutional Commissions and other
Constitutional Offices, Government owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) not covered by
Republic Act No 10149 and local government units. It covers government personnel whether
regular, contractual or casual, appointive or elective and on full time or part-time basis.
It excludes from its coverage Military and Uniformed Personnel, GOCCs, Individuals
whose services are engaged through job orders, contracts of service, consultancy or service
contracts with no employer-employee relationship92
Source of Funding
The source of funding differs on the type of agency involved. For National Government
Agencies (NGAs) the amount needed shall be included in the annual General Appropriations
Act. For Government Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), the amount shall come
from funds in the corporate operating budgets approved by the DBM. For LGUs, the amounts
91
An Act Modifying the Salary Schedule for Civilian Government Personnel and Authorizing the Grant of
Additional Benefits, and for Other Purposes, R.A 11466, §2, 2020
92
Id. §3
44
shall be charged against their respective local government funds in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of this Act and Republic Act No. 7160. 93
5.Efforts of the Government to Uplift the Lives of Government Employees through

Allowances
The efforts of the government in increasing salaries to assist employees when it comes
to buffering skyrocketing prices of commodities however did not stop by providing increases
in terms of basic salary. During the 1990s, the government introduced the “Personnel
Economic Relief Allowance” otherwise known as PERA and “Additional Compensation”
otherwise known as ADCOM .
The Additional Compensation, is a part of the 1990s legislation, it was adopted to grant
additional compensation to government employees as a recognition of the fact of their
increasing economic needs. The amount is likewise initially given in the amount of five
hundred pesos (Php500). This was however increased to One Thousand Pesos (Php 1,000) in
2006, due to the recognition of the fact that total monthly compensation of national government
employees has not been increased since July 2011, notwithstanding the periodic wage
adjustments granted to private sector and increases in basic commodities. 94The administrative
order authorized the increase in the existing P500 per month ADCOM by P1,000 per month,
resulting to a total of P1,500 per month.95
Initially, the Personnel Economic Relief Allowance (PERA) was also Five hundred
pesos (Php 500), it is granted to all appointive national and local government employees with
Salary Grade 23 or below, or Salary Grade 24 without representation and/or transportation
allowance, to casual and contractual employees of equivalent grade who have rendered twelve
(12) months continuous or uninterrupted service and to company grade officers and non-
commissioned and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines who are receiving
regular pay and their counterpart uniformed personnel of the Department of Interior and Local
93
An Act Modifying the Salary Schedule for Civilian Government Personnel and Authorizing the Grant of
Additional Benefits, and for Other Purposes, R.A 11466, §15, 2020
94
Office of the President, Granting Additional Compensation In the amount of One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00) per Month to All Employees of National Government , [A.O No 144], February 28,2006
95
Id.
45
Government. 96
The requirement however of having to serve for “12 months” was however
removed in subsequent legislations.
One thing to note about the history of PERA is from 1990s up to 2009, the amount this
allowance remained to be the same, which is five hundred pesos, an amount that perhaps didn’t
truly reflect economic changes during such a long period of time, considering the great increase
experienced by private sector employees in terms of their wage. Despite of its plausible intent
to assist employees who try to make both ends meet with a small amount of salary, it did not
really address the economic demands of government employees. In 2010, the amount of PERA
which likewise included the “additional allowance” was increased to two thousand pesos and
has remained as such until today.
Another thing to note, is that as compared to the basic wage itself, Personnel Economic
Relief Allowance is only paid as an allowance and not integrated into the basic pay, it is not
97
taxable under any existing laws and regulations. Therefore, it should not be a factor in
determining compliance with minimum wage laws.
In 2012, Senator Francis Escudero introduced Senate Bill No. 3125, he recognized that
higher gasoline prices, higher transportation fares and higher prices of basic commodities since
the PERA’s inception in the 1990s. The bill recognizes the true work and intent of the PERA
as a form of economic relief and it proposes that PERA be subject to an automatic yearly
adjustment equivalent to any increase of the annual inflation rate in the country. This bill aims
to make PERA responsive to the needs of government employees in the event of high prices,
by adjusting the current PERA which is two thousand pesos (Php 2,000) to four thousand pesos
(Php 4,000) .98 As of today, it is however unfortunate that the that this bill is still on pending
status.
96
Directing the Transfer of Fiscal Year 1992 Appropriations for Development Services and Facilities of
Concerned National Government Departments and Agencies to Internal Revenue Allotment, Enjoining Local
Government Units to Revise their 1992 Annual Budget Accordingly and Instruting the Secretary of Budget and
Management to Issue Rules and Regulations to be Observed for the Purpose, All Pursuant to the Provisions of
the Local Government Code of 1992, [Executive Order No. 507], February 24,1992
97
Office of the President, Adopting the Opinion Dated 3 July 1991 of the Secretary of Justice that Personnel
Economic Relief Allowance is Not Taxable, [Memorandum Circular No. 145], January 17,1992
98
An Act Providing an Increase and an Automatic Adjustment Mechanism in the Personnel Economic Relief
Allowance (PERA) Granted to Government Employees, [S.B No. 3125], Explanatory Note, Second Regular
Session, 2015
46
6.Judicial Recognition of the Inequitable Treatment Experienced by Government

Employees
Manuel Belarmino v. Employees’ Compensation Commission and Government Service
Insurance System99
This seven-year-old case involves a claim for benefits for the death of a lady school
teacher which the public respondents disallowed on the ground that the cause of death was
not work-connected. 100
Oania Belarmino, was a classroom teacher of the Department of Education,

Culture and Sports assigned at the Buracan Elementary School in Dimasalang,
Masbate.She had been a classroom teacher since for eleven (11) years.101
In 1982, while performing her duties as a classroom teacher, Mrs. Belarmino who
was in her 8th month of pregnancy, accidentally slipped and fell on the classroom floor.
She complained of abdominal pain and stomach cramps which continued for several days.
Heedless of the advice of her female co-teachers to take a leave of absence, she continued
to report to the school because there was much work to do. Eleven (11) days after her
accident, she went into labor and prematurely delivered a baby girl at home .She was
subsequently brought to a Hospital. The doctor found that she was suffering from
septicemia post partum due to infected lacerations of the vagina and died a few days
after.102
A claim for death benefits was filed by her husband which was however denied by
the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) which held that "septicemia post
partum, the cause of death, is not an occupational disease, and neither was there any
showing that aforesaid ailment was contracted by reason of her employment103
The Supreme Court ruled that public respondents' peremptory denial of the
petitioner's claim constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. The court ruled that although the
99
Belarmino v. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 90204, May 11, 1990
100
Id.
101
Id.
102
Id.
103
Id.
47
illness, septicemia post partum, which resulted in the death is admittedly not listed as an
occupational disease as a classroom teacher, her death from that ailment is compensable
because an employment accident and the conditions of her employment contributed to its
development. The court ruled that the condition of the classroom floor caused Mrs.
Belarmino to slip and fall and suffer injury as a result and that fall therefore was the
proximate or responsible cause that set in motion an unbroken chain of events, leading to
her demise.104
With regard to poverty and the inequality experienced by government employees,

the court acknowledged that it is true that if she had delivered her baby under sterile
conditions in a hospital operating room instead of in the unsterile environment of her
humble home, and if she had been attended by specially trained doctors and nurses, she
probably would not have suffered lacerations of the vagina and she probably would not
have contracted the fatal infection. Furthermore, if she had remained longer than five (5)
days in the hospital to complete the treatment of the infection, she probably would not
have died. But who is to blame for her inability to afford a hospital delivery and the
services of trained doctors and nurses? The court may take judicial notice of the meager
salaries that the Government pays its public school teachers. Forced to live on the margin
of poverty, they are unable to afford expensive hospital care, nor the services of trained
doctors and nurses when they or members of their families are ill. Penury compelled the
deceased to scrimp by delivering her baby at home instead of in a hospital.105
The Government is not entirely blameless for her death for it is not entirely
blameless for her poverty. Government has yet to perform its declared policy "to free the
people from poverty, provide adequate social services, extend to them a decent standard
of living, and improve the quality of life for all (Sec. 7, Art. II, 1973 Constitution and Sec.
9, Art. II, 1987 Constitution). Social justice for the lowly and underpaid public school
teachers will only be an empty shibboleth until Government adopts measures to
104
Id.
105
Id.
48
ameliorate their economic condition and provides them with adequate medical care or the
means to afford it. "Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society".106
As previously mentioned in Chapter 1, poverty constitutes as a denial of human rights,

it affects how a person enjoys the other rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. This
case recognizes the fact that government, in its role as an employer likewise contributes to
poverty in itself, it likewise emphasizes the government’s laxity in guaranteeing the rights
granted under the Constitution.
Central Bank (now BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas) Employees Association, Inc., v.

BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas and the Executive Secretary107
The petitioners in this case, challenges Article II, Section 15 of R.A 7653 otherwise
known as the New Central Bank Act which deals with the compensation structure of BSP, it
provided that the Monetary Board shall make its own system to conform as closely as possible
with the principles provided under the Salary Standardization Act. It likewise provided that the
compensation and wage structure of employees whose positions fall under salary grade 19 and
below shall be in accordance with the rates prescribed in the Salary Standardization Act. The
petitioners in this case argue that the proviso makes an unconstitutional cut between two classes
of employees in the BSP which are those exempted from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL)
and the rank and file employees or those covered by the SSL. The petitioners contended that
this classification is a classic case of class legislation, allegedly not based on substantial
distinctions which make real differences bit solely on the Salary Grade of BSP Personnel
position. Petitioner also claims that it is not germane to the purpose of the law which is to
establish professionalism in all levels in the BSP. 108
The Court ruled that in constitutional law, equal protection clause does not prevent the
Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall
operate so long as classification is not unreasonable. The court reiterated that the guaranty of
106
Id.
107
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas, G.R No. 148208, December
15,2004
108
Id.
49
equal protection of law is not a guaranty of equality in the application of laws upon all citizens
of the state. Despite of acknowledging the validity in terms of making a distinction, the court
applied the concept of relative unconstitutionality. It provided that a statute valid at one time
may become void at another time because of altered circumstances. The court ruled that eleven
years after the amendment of the BSP Charter, the rank-and-file of seven other GFIs were
granted the exemption that was specifically denied to the rank-and-file of the BSP, and such
subsequent and significant circumstances considerably altered the reasonability of the
continued operation of the questioned proviso. 109
The court made mention that the distinction made is akin to a distinction based on
economic class and status, with higher grades as recipients of benefits specifically withheld
from lower grades. Officers of the BSP as of the date of the said ruling received higher
compensation packages that are competitive with the industry while the poorer, low salaried
employees are limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. The court reiterated the policy under
our Constitution “to free the people from poverty, provide adequate social services, extend to
them a decent standard of living, and improve the quality of life for all”, and any act of congress
that runs counter to such constitutional desideratum deserves strict scrutiny by this Court
before it can pass muster110.
It is material to last paragraph in this decision, as it provides enlightenment of the courts

value to lowly BSP rank and file employees. “To be sure, the BSP rank-and file employees
merit greater concern from this court. They represent the more impotent rank-and-file
government employees, who unlike employees in the private sector, have no specific right to
organize as a collective bargaining unit and negotiate for better terms and conditions of
employment, nor the power to hold a strike to protest unfair labor practices. Not only are they
impotent as a labor unit, but their efficacy to lobby in Congress is almost nil as RA 7653
effectively isolated them from other GFI rank and file in compensation. These BSP rank and
file employees represent the politically powerless and they should not be compelled to seek a
109
Id.
110
Id.
50
political solution to their unequal and iniquitous treatment. Indeed, they have waited for so
many years for the legislature to act. They cannot be asked to wait some more for
discrimination cannot be given any waiting time. Unless the equal protection clause of the
Constitution is a mere platitude, the Court’s duty to save them from reasonable
discrimination.111
The case, although recognizing the validity of distinction between employees that are
covered by the SSL and those that are not covered by SSL recognized the flaws within the
framework of SSL. Although it did not rule that the salary standardization law is
unconstitutional, not being an issue in the case, the court still recognized the inequality
experienced by SSL employees who are deemed to be politically powerless. The court even
reiterated that it is the obligation of the government under our Constitution “to free the people
from poverty, provide adequate social services, extend to them a decent standard of living, and
improve the quality of life for all”, and any act of congress that runs counter to such
constitutional desideratum deserves strict scrutiny.
Examining the charters of the GFIs that provide for blanket exemption of their
employees from the coverage of the SSL as provided for in the case, we immediately notice
the avenue for bargaining provided for in the charters, likewise the periodic review of their
wages is for done once every two years. The case provided that legislative deliberations justify
the grant or withdrawal of exemption from the SSL (1) GOCC or GFI is essentially proprietary
in character, (2) GOCC or GFI is in direct competition with their counterparts in the private
sector, not only in terms of the provisions of the goods and services, but also in terms of hiring
and retaining competent personnel and (3) the GOCC or GFI are or were experiencing
difficulties filling up plantillia positions with competent personnel and/or retaining these
personnel.112
We now attack the following justifications, not in order to justify that there shouldn’t
be a distinction in terms of compensation between non-exempt and exempt government entities
from the SSL. We use it in order to argue such arguments used by the court likewise be used
111
Id.
112
Id.
51
to assert for the improvement of compensation of the class to whom SSL is to be applied in
order to address the fact that it violates employees’ right to earn a living wage. It cannot be
denied that there’s a huge disparity of rights and benefits between the government employees
working for GOCCs and GFIs as compared to those who are not, they are provided with greater
avenue to bargain for better benefits, due to the three reasons provided above.
First, with regard to the argument that GOCCs and GFIs are proprietary in character,
in the language of Justice Makalintal: “the growing complexities of modern society however
have rendered the traditional classification of functions of government quite unrealistic, not to
say quite obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which
the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only “because it was better equipped
to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals”,
continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the
government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social
changes of the times. “.113 The traditional concept of ministrant and constituent functions in
government have long been blurred due to the development of our times. Indeed, GOCCs and
GFIs derive or generate other funds other than the funds provided under the General
Appropriation Act, but should the amount of funding really limit the realization of the right to
receive proper compensation? In the chapter 3, we will provide an analysis of how other
countries like Myanmar and India approach the issue on public sector compensation. We will
provide that poverty or economic issues was not really a sufficient reason for the government
to provide a lesser amount of wage to its own employees. In fact, we will show that those
countries are now slowly moving towards the path of improving compensation to public sector
employees despite of the economic implications that it may have especially on their national
budget. Since the traditional notion of ministrant and constituent functions have long been
blurred through the passage of time, and through the further demand of improving government
service, the “proprietary” character of government should not in any way provide an excuse to
discriminate against certain classes of employee. There has been a patent violation of the right
to living wage of government employees, once again it is argued that the government is bound
113
ACFA v. CUGCO, G.R. No. L-21484, November 29, 1969
52
to ensure that each employee experiences the realization granted to him by the Constitution.
An employee, in entering the government does not necessarily make an express or implied
waiver of the rights granted to him.
With regard to the fact the GOCCs and GFIs are in direct competition with the private
sector, not only in terms of the delivery of goods and services, but also in hiring and retaining
personnel and the fact that GOCC or GFI are or were experiencing difficulties filling up
plantillia positions with competent personnel and/or retaining these personnel we argue that
such issues apply to all forms of government employment. Going back to our overview of the
laws that affect government compensation scheme after the 1987 Constitution, we have
continuously established the government’s policy to provide equal pay for substantially equal
work and that in determining rates of pay, due regard shall be given to, among others prevailing
rates in the private sector for comparable work. In fact, the current salary standardization law
provided that compensation for all civilian government personnel shall be standardized and
rationalized across all government agencies to create an enabling environment that will
promote social justice, integrity, efficiency, productivity, accountability and excellence in civil
service, likewise, it provided that the compensation of all civilian personnel shall be generally
competitive with those in the private sector doing comparable work in order to attract, retain
and motivate corps of competent and dedicated civil servants.114 The competition with regard
to obtaining competent and highly qualified employees exists in all forms of employment, not
only those that involve GOCCs and GFIs. Nowadays, it cannot be denied that competent
teachers who receive little to no support from the government are enticed to teach in private
schools due to the disparity in terms of payment and benefits, the same exists in the field of
healthcare, wherein government hospitals compete for competent doctors that would rather
engage in private practice due to the benefits and privileges that private hospitals can provide.
114
Salary Standardization Law 2019
53
7.The dangers that we seek to avoid: An Analysis of the Disparity of Minimum Wage
between Private and Public Sector Employee, The Twenty-two year old growing
violation
At this point, readers would probably begin to consider that perhaps in terms of
application, there has been no injustice all along despite of the gap or errors in the law
throughout the years. It is however unfortunate that that is not the case for the Philippines.
This table provides for a general overview of the difference in terms of compensation
since 1989 up to the present. In this table, the daily minimum wage in the National Capital
Region is used to compare the minimum wage of private sector employees to that of public
sector employees. The Daily minimum wage for the private sector is multiplied to twenty-two
(22) working days in order to arrive at a monthly rate and allowances are disregarded because
allowances are not be deemed as part of the determination of one’s basic wage.
YEAR MINIMUM BASIC WAGE RATES LOWEST BASIC MONTHLY

PER WAGE ORDER IN THE PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT
115
NCR REGION
1989 Php89.00 x 22 = Php 1,958 Php 2,000116
1990 Php106 x 22 = Php 2,332 Php 2,000
1993 Php135 x 22 = Php 2,970 Php 2,000
1994 (No Wage Order) Php 2,970 Php 2,800117
1995 (No Wage Order) Php 2,970 Php 3,800118
1996 Php 161 x 22 = Php 3,542 Php 4,400119
1996 Php 165 x 22 = Php 3,630 Php 4,400
115
Summary of Daily Minimum Wag Rates Per Wage Order, By Region Non-Agriculture (1989-Present)
available at: https://nwpc.dole.gov.ph/stats/summary-of-daily-minimum-wage-rates-per-wage-order-by-region-
non-agriculture-1989-present/ (Last accessed August 1,2020)
116
117 Department of Budget Management, Guidelines for the Initial Implementation of the Revised
Compensation and Classification System, National Compensation Circular No. 72, March 9,1994
118
Department of Budget Management, Guidelines for the Second Year Implementation of the New Salary
Schedule in the Government
119
Department of Budget Management, Guidelines for the Third Year Implementation of the New Salary
Schedule in the Government
54
1997 Php 180 x 22= Php 3,960 Php 4,400120

1997 Php 185 x 22 = Php 4,070 Php 4,400
1998 Php 198 x 22 = Php 4,356 Php 4,400
1999 Php 223.50 x 22 = Php 4,917 Php 4,400

2000 Php 250 x 22 = Php 5,500 Php 4,840121
2001 Php 250 x 22 = Php 5,500 Php 5,082122
2002 Php 250 22= Php 5,500 Php 5,082
2004 Php 250 x 22 = Php 5,500 Php 5,082
2005 Php 275 x 22 = Php 6,050 Php 5,082
2006 Php 300 x 22 = Php 6,600 Php 5,082
2007 Php 362 x 22 = Php 7,964 Php 5,590123
2008 Php 377 x 22 = 8,294 Php 6,149124
2008 Php 382 x 22 = Php 8,404 Php 6,149
2009 (No Wage Order) = Php 8,404 Php 6,862125
2010 Php 404 x 22 = Php 8,888 Php 7,575126
2011 Php 404 x 22 Php 8,888 Php 8,287127
120
Office of the President, Implementing the Forth and Final Year Salary Increase Authorized by Joint Senate
and House of Representatives Resolution No. 01, Series of 1994, [Executive Order No. 389], January 7,1997
121
Office of the President, Grant of Salary Adjustment to All Government Personnel, [Executive Order No.
219], March 20,2000
122
Office of the President, Grant of Salary Adjustment to All Government Personnel, [Executive Order No. 22],
July 1, 2001
123
Office of the President, Authorizing Compensation Adjustments to Government Personnel [Executive Order
611], March 14,2007
124
Office of the President, Compensation Adjustments for Government Personnel, [Executive Order No 719],
May 1,2008
125
Office of the President, Adopting the First Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule of Civilian Personnel
and Base Pay Schedule of Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, as well as the Modified
Position Classification System Pursuant to Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, S 2009,
[Executive Order No. 811], June 17,2009
126
Office of the President, Implementation of the Second Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule for Civilian
Personnel and Base Pay Schedule for Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, [Executive Order
No. 900], June 23, 2010
127
Office of the President, Implementation of the Third Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule for Civilian
Personnel and Base Pay Schedule for the Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government
55
2012 Php 426 x 22 = Php 9,372 Php 9,000

128
2013 Php 436 x 22 = Php 9,592 Php 9,000

2014 Php 451 x 22= Php 9,922 Php 9,000
2015 Php 466 x 22 = Php 10,252 Php 9,000
2016 Php 481 x 22 = Php 10,582 Php 9,478129
2017 Php 502 x 22 = Php 11,044 Php 9,981130
2018 Php 537 x 22 = Php 11,814 Php 10,510131
Indeed, with the above provided table, we notice that there are various increase in terms
of the basic wage that private sector employees receive , we could likewise notice system that
in the previous years, there was a failure to increase salaries of public sector employees to an
amount that is equivalent to the prevailing minimum wage, leaving the public sector employees
behind in terms of receiving an “adequate” wage.
For the purposes of this analysis, the proponent would like to emphasize that existing
laws exclude allowances (PERA and Adcom) from basic salary or wage. In the case of Cebu
Institute of Technology v. Ople, the Supreme court stated that it will not adopt a different
meaning of the terms salaries or wages to mean the opposite, ie., to include allowances in the
concept of salaries or wages.134 According to the Compensation Plan issued by the Department
128
Office of the President, Implementation of the Fourth Tranche of the Modified Salary Schedule for Military
and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, [Executive Order No. 76], April 30,2012
129
Office of the President, Modifying the Salary Schedule for Civilian Government Personnel and Authorizing
the Grant of Additional Benefits for Both Civilian and Military and Uniformed Personnel, [Executive Order No.
201], February 19,2016
130
Id.
131
Id.
132
Id.
133
Republic Act No. 11466, §7
134
Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople G.R No 58870, December 18,1987
56
of Budget Management, PERA and ADCOM are deemed to be fixed fringe benefits. 135Since
it is deemed as a fringe benefit, it strengthens our argument that it is indeed excluded in terms
of considering basic pay. This has been further clarified by jurisprudence, in the case of Davao
Fruits, the court made mention that “Clearly, the term "basic salary" includes all remunerations
or earnings paid by the employer to the employee, but excludes cost-of-living allowances,
profit-sharing payments, and all allowances and monetary benefits which have not been
considered as part of the basic salary of the employee as of December 16, 1975. The exclusion
of cost-of-living allowances and profit sharing payments shows the intention to strip "basic
salary" of payments which are otherwise considered as "fringe" benefits. This intention is
emphasized in the catch-all phrase "all allowances and monetary benefits which
are not considered or integrated as part of the basic salary." Basic salary,
therefore does not merely exclude the benefits expressly mentioned but all payments which
may be in the form of "fringe" benefits or allowances136
Currently, the disparity in the amount of minimum wage received by the private sector
as compared to the wage received by the public sector is considerably less if we consider the
allowances provided for by law. Factoring in, the “allowances” into the computation, the
proponent agrees that the wage in the public sector is more than that of the employees in the
private sector. But to consider allowances as part of the basic pay, would clearly be contrary
to existing laws and jurisprudence. Assuming arguendo that it alleviates the disparity of wage
between the public and the private sector, this does not guarantee that there would no longer
an issue with regard to the inequality in terms of receiving an equitable wage. Due to the lack
of safeguards specifically placed in the law as to what the government should consider in terms
of wage adjustments, problems or the greater disparities in salaries that existed for various
years could again be experienced. For example, in 2008, despite of adding the amount of
allowance of thousand pesos, (Php 1,000), five hundred (Php 500) as PERA, and another five
hundred (Php 500), as AdCom, to the salary of public sector employees which is six thousand
135
Compensation Plan, available at: https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-
Chapter-3.pdf (last accessed August 1,2020)
136
Davao Fruits Corp. v. Associated Labor Unions, G.R. No. 85073, August 24, 1993
57
one hundred and forthy nine (Php 6,149), it would still be considerably less than that of the
eight thousand two hundred and ninety four (Php 8,294) compensation of an employee in the
private sector.
The table provided above serve as proof of how flawed the system is, due to the flaws
and the lack of safeguards to protect the interest of government employees, their right to receive
a living wage has been violated for 22 long years. As it stands today, and despite of the
considerations made during the Committee deliberations, SSL5, for its first tranche is not yet
equivalent to the amount of the prevailing minimum wage. Again, a living wage is the wage
that would enable a family to live a dignified life, have its basic needs fulfilled and have the
necessary social services rendered to the family.137 Living wage is just part and parcel of what
the wage boards consider in order to arrive at the prevailing minimum wage. Therefore, if a
person receives an amount less than minimum wage, can it be said that his right to a living
wage is realized? Should there be any distinction as to who could receive a living wage?
The proponent proposes that instead of having a bandaid solution of granting
“allowances”, it would be best, proper and timely to put a halt on the abuse of right that had
long been encouraged by the system of determining our public sector compensation. We need
to fix the disparity terms of the basic salary itself to avoid possible issues in the future, after
all, the framers of our Constitution intended salaries of public sector employees should adjust
in accordance with the minimum wage determined by legislation. Although the minimum wage
for the private sector remains to be at a rate of five hundred thirty seven pesos (Php 537) a day,
this may change through the issuance of subsequent wage orders in the future , it is further
improved by means of collective bargaining. It should be taken into account that minimum
wage rates, for the private sector is determined by taking into account various important factors
such as the poverty threshold, the prevailing wage rates as determined by the Labor Force
Survey, and other socio-economic indicators (i.e inflation, employment figures, gross domestic
product among others) which insures better workers protection.138 Wages for the private sector
137
138
How is Minimum Wage Determined available at: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/featured/how-is-
minimum-wage-determined/#:~:text=Tier%201,which%20insures%20better%20workers%20protection. (last
accessed July 5,2020)
58
may further adjust, but the amount of compensation as determined by law for public sector
employees would remain the same as it is implemented in accordance with the tranches
provided for by the law. We seek therefore to avoid the continuous and possible danger of
future disparities in terms of wages. It is worthwhile to reiterate that as compared to private
sector employees, public sector employees have little to absolutely no means of negotiating
with the government when it comes to wage adjustments as it is not subject to collective
bargaining. Since the wage of government employees is highly dependent on legislation, we
have to make sure that the law itself, would be a law in accordance with the true intentions
behind the Constitution.
The proponent therefore argues that the original intent of incorporating these
allowances into the government employees’ compensation package does not serve the purpose
of truly addressing their timely economic needs. Inflation rates, vary on a year to year basis,
but it can be observed that the amount of such allowances remained as such for a great number
of years.
59
CHAPTER 03: MINIMUM WAGES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR

WORKERS THROUGH AN INTERNATIONAL LENS
This chapter provides a general overview about the approaches of various states with
regard to compensating public sector employees in relation to minimum wage. This chapter
would provide for possible approaches with regard to providing a framework that not only
takes into account providing minimum wage to public sector employees, but likewise a
framework that ensures participation of public sector employees in matters that directly affect
their interest.
1.The Minimum Wage Fixing Convention
Under the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), each member of the
International Labour Organisation which ratifies to the Convention undertakes to establish a
system of minimum wages which covers all groups of wage earners. It obliges members states
to take into account the following factors in determining the level of minimum wages (a) the
needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the
country, the cost of living, social security benefits, and the relative living standards of other
social groups;(b) economic factors, including the requirements of economic development,
levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of
employment.139
Prior to this Convention, the ILO made Recommendation No. 30 – Minimum Wage-
Fixing Machinery Recommendation, with the purpose of recommending a creation of a
minimum wage-fixing machinery. According to such recommendation, the minimum wage-
fixing machinery, whatever form it may take, should operate by way of investigation into the
relevant conditions in the trade or part of trade concerned and consolation with the interests
139
Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970, (No.131) available at:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C131#:~:text=1.
,that%20coverage%20would%20be%20appropriate. (last accessed July 25,2020)
60
primarily and principally affected which are the employers or workers whose views in all
matters should in any case be solicited and be given full consideration.140
The Convention provides that it is appropriate to the nature of the minimum wage fixing
machinery that a provision shall also be made for the direct participation in its operation of
representatives of organisations of employers and workers concerned or where no such
organisations exist, representatives of employers and workers concerned on a basis of equality
and persons having recognised competence for representing general interests of the country
and appointed after full consultation with representative organisations of employers and
workers concerned, where such organisation exists and such consultation is in accordance with
national law or practice.141
Although the following provisions may sound familiar due to its resemblance to our
own legal framework of determining minimum wage with regard to the private sector, it is
unfortunate that the Philippines until today is not a signatory to such convention.
The General Concept of Minimum Wage and its importance

From the earliest days, the founding Members of the International Labour Organisation
considered that one of the aspects that should be subject of regulations on condition of work
was a wage that secured workers “a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their
time and country.”142 Indeed, in this review on the international approach with regard to
minimum wage, it should be emphasized that what is deemed as “minimum wage” for one
country, may be more or less than that of the other country taking into account the economic
differences between the two. But the understanding should however be the same that minimum
wage exists in order to afford an individual “a reasonable standard of life.” It should be taken
140
Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Recommendation, 1928, (No.30) available at:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:31
2368:NO (last accessed July 25,2020)
141
Id.
142
International Labor Conference, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (Articles 19,22,and 35 of the Constitution) Minimum Wages: Wage-fixing machinery
application and supervision, Seventy Ninth Session, IntenationalLabour Conference, report iii, 1992
61
into account that minimum wage is a special concept, considered not only by the ILO and the
countries themselves but also the United Nations Organization, this is reflected in provisions
contained in the international instruments it has adopted over the years. Mention be made of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides in Article 23, paragraph 3 that
“Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself
and his family an existence worthy of human dignity”. Article 7 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights makes provision for the right to “remuneration which
provides all workers, as a minimum, with... a decent living for themselves and their families
in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant”.143 It cannot be denied, that the
right to minimum wage is recognized by various states and organizations as a human right. It
is a right continuously reiterated in various international instruments and in various national
laws of states.
In defining what is meant by “minimum wage”, it may be useful to recall the conclusion
of a meeting of experts convened by the Governing Body at its 168 th Session (Geneva,
February-March 1967). The purpose of the meeting was to examine: (a) problems of minimum
wage fixing and related problems with special reference to developing countries; (b) ways in
which the ILO’s Conventions and Recommendations on minimum wage fixing machinery
might be revised if revision were considered desirable. The experts stated in their report that
the minimum wage “represents the lowest level of remuneration permitted, in law or fact,
whatever the method of remuneration or he qualification of the worker. 144 The 1967 meeting
of experts stated in its the report of ILO stated that : “(a) the minimum wage is the wage
considered sufficient to satisfy the vital necessities of food, clothing, housing, education and
recreation of the worker, taking into account the economic and cultural development of each
country. In some cases, the needs of the family are also taken into account in the same manner
as those of the worker, and in other cases they are covered by family allowances and other
measures of social security.145 With this kind of interpretation, we could see that minimum
143
Id.
144
Id.
145
ILO: Report of the Meeting of Experts of 1967, para. 100
62
wage should provide for this basic human needs (food, clothing, shelter, education and even
recreational activities), clearly it affects the overall aspect of how a person enjoys his human
life.
In some countries, the legal minimum wage laws clearly state that public sector workers
are included in the in laws regarding minimum wages. For example, the minimum wage
legislation applies to public workers in the Bahamas. Act No. 1 of 2002 on Minimum Wages
in Commonwealth of the Bahamas states that application of the Act includes “… any such
employment by or under the Crown in right of the Government of The Bahamas146In Chapter
2, we made mention that previously in the Philippines, the Minimum Wage Law covered
government employees as well. Most frequently, however the global trend is, the public sector
is excluded, in whole or in part, from the general labour legislation, and consequently from its
provisions on minimum wage fixing. When the public sector is excluded, wage setting for the
public sector is often based on administrative law, which sets out how wages should be
determined for these workers. These laws can set wages for public sector workers from national
level down to provincial and local levels. While many countries have laws with provisions that
set public sector wages higher, some countries do use the national minimum wage set in the
private sector as a basis for wage setting for government workers. These minimum wages can
be applied to some categories of public sector workers or to all public sector workers in the
country. 147 Note that this does not mean that wage for public sector employees are lower than
that of private sector employees, it’s just governed by a different law.
2.An overview on how states determine public sector wage

How does the minimum wage affect public sector wage scales?
A major influence on wage levels for public sector workers is the impact that these
levels may have on public spending.148 Increase of salaries would necessarily have to undergo
a budgeting process. For this reason, national legislative bodies will have some level of
influence on decisions regarding wages paid to public workers usually by providing final
146
Id.
147
Id.
148
Id.
63
149
approval on any wage setting exercise. Here in the Philippines, salaries of government
employees are determined through a law making process, throughout the years, initiatives to
increase government salaries came from either the executive or the legislative.
In some countries minimum wage laws may apply to some categories of public sector
workers, but not to others. Public workers that are not included in these laws in many countries
often include the military, security services, and police whose wage levels.In Uganda, only the
military is excluded from minimum wage coverage in the law.150 In countries that exclude
some categories of workers, other laws and regulations will set base pay levels for the specific
group of public sector workers not covered by other labour laws. 151Currently, our minimum
wage law applies only private sector employees, but with regard to the Salary Standardization
Law, which is a law that provides for the salary rates of government employees, it likewise
excludes from its coverage Military and Uniformed Personnel, GOCCs, and individuals whose
services are engaged through job orders, contracts of service, consultancy or service contracts
with no employer-employee relationship
Indeed, the minimum wage can act as a base upon which public sector wages can be
set at higher levels. In this case some categories of public workers will earn the minimum
wage, and higher rank public sector workers will be paid for example two or three times the
minimum wage. In such a case, the minimum wage acts as a baseline for the wages of many
or all public sector workers, and increases in minimum wages can have large “spill-over” or
“domino” effects on the entire public sector wage bill. Hence the effects of minimum wages
on the public sector wage bill, will depend on how public sector wages are set.152
How are public sector wages determined?

In the previous discussion we made mention that currently, the global trend is to
exclude public sector employees from the national minimum wage and have it governed by a
different law. A framework, that the Philippines currently adopts having a “salary
149
Id.
150
Id.
151
Id.
152
Id.
64
standardization law” for public sector employees, while having labor laws and wage orders
applicable to private sector employees. We will now discuss the current approaches of other
states with regard to determining the wage rates of public sector employees.
(a) Collective bargaining

One method of wage setting in the public sector is collective bargaining between
government and public sector unions. Collective agreements between public sector workers
and the government can be done centrally, or can be decentralized. Collective bargaining is
commonly found in the public sector in Northern European countries, such as Sweden and
Finland153 . In Sweden and Finland wages are negotiated in a two tiered collective bargaining
system, in which the central collective agreement specifies an average salary for all public
workers, but allows ministry directors to use comparable wages outside of the agency to set
wage levels above the collectively bargained minimum level.154Two-tiered system isn’t a new
concept, in fact the Philippines adopt a two-tiered system with regard to maintaining the
mandatory minimum wage in the Philippines. The mandatory minimum wage setting under
R.A 6727 or the Wage Rationalization Act act as the first tier (TIER 1) and it’s thereafter
complemented by a voluntary productivity-based pay scheme as the second tier (TIER 2). 155
This system has been applied in our country since 2012.
In Germany collective bargaining is used, but public sector workers are divided into
two distinct groups: civil servants (Beamte) and public employees (Tarifebeschäftigte).
Beamte cannot collectively bargain or and the government sets terms and conditions of
employment, including wages. Tarifebeschäftigte are regulated by civil law and similar
conditions to private industry including the right to collectively bargain. The negotiations for
the Tarifebeschäftigte can in principle influence the wage setting for the Beamte. This is similar
to the situation in Israel, where centrally organised collective bargaining takes place as a basis
153
Id.
154
Id.
155
Department of Labor and Employment National Wages and Productivity Commission, Two-Tiered Wage
System, available at: excludes from its coverage Military and Uniformed Personnel, GOCCs, Individuals whose
services are engaged through job orders, contracts of service, consultancy or service contracts with no
employer-employee relationship (last accessed August 2,2020)
65
for a second collective agreement negotiated with trade unions for professional public sector
workers.156In the Philippines, it should be noted that salary increases may not be the same for
all sectors of government, for instance, under the Duterte Administration, it cannot be denied
and it is in fact noticeable that the salaries of military officers and police officers have
increased. Various increases were also experienced by other sectors throughout the years,
sectors which are excluded from the Salary Standardization Law. GOCCS as provided in the
case of Central Bank are given more freedom to determine their own compensation and benefit
packages.
In Turkey, public sector trade unions must be legally be consulted regarding any issues
affecting remuneration. Negotiations on public sector working conditions, including
remuneration, are highly centralized. The result of negotiations on remuneration, including
wages, can lead to only one set of agreements that cover all public sector workers.157In the
Philippines, there’s no negotiation process that could occur in a collective bargaining level,
because as mentioned in the previous chapters, negotiation is only limited to matters which are
not fixed by law, and matters which does not require further appropriation of funds. Some
public sector employees are however invited to public hearings and committee discussions, it
is however emphasized that currently there is no specific framework with regard to the
representation and consultation of public sector employees . In Mexico, agreement on wages
and remuneration between public sector unions and the government is legally mandatory, with
this agreement applying to all public sector workers. De facto negotiations can also be
decentralised. For example, in Australia base pay for public sector workers is determined
through decentralised negotiations, when there is a de facto negotiation, departments of the
government negotiate base salary with respective public sector unions. While leading to
consistent remuneration outcomes for workers within a government department, this also can
create significant differences in pay for workers in different government departments.158
156
Id.
157
Id.
158
Minimum Wage for Public Sector Employees, available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---
ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/genericdocument/wcms_474533.pdf (last accessed July 3,2020)
66
It is also important to note that pay can vary between levels of the government. Public
workers, who work for the national government, as described above, may be covered by
collective bargaining agreements that do not apply to state, regional, or local government. Also,
collective agreements may be used in some layers of government, but not others. Similarly,
state, provincial or local governments might also determine wage levels to be paid to public
sector workers at the respective levels. For example, a provincial governor might legally set
pay and remuneration levels for public sector workers based on commission recommendations,
collective agreements, or they may have final say on compensation. City mayors and city
councils may also be able to set wages in a city. Often the levels of pay for regional, state, or
local public workers is less than national government workers, but this may be different if in
large or industrial cities in a country. 159This concept is likewise not new, under our very own
Salary Standardization Law, employees who work for the local government may indeed
receive lesser amount as compared to employees who work for the national government. For
the National government however, employees equally receive the same amount of
compensation, and the basis of such amount would be the salary rate, fit for the National
Capital Region, this may however be inequitable due to the differences in terms of living wage
per region.
The ILO, recognizes that minimum wages may be fixed through collective barraging.
This is explicitly recognized as a valid form of minimum wage fixing machinery by
Recommendation No. 135 and Implicitly, by Convention No. 131.Where this is the case,
national legislation does not generally contain an explicit definition of a “contractual minimum
wage”. Nevertheless wages fixed through collective bargaining may not, in principle be lower
than those paid in other similar activities, and their binding force is guaranteed by the State.
This is the case of a fair number of countries whose legislation stipulates that minimum wages
are to be fixed by means of collective bargaining, complementing other minimum wages which
159
Id.
67
the State may set through other machinery, or the case of countries which leave all decisions
concerning minimum conditions of employment including wage to social partners. 160
(b) State decides with or without consultation

Wages for public workers can be set simply by unilateral state decision-making. In
these countries the role of the public sector union may be limited to only consultations, not
collective bargaining.161 This is the current framework adopted by the Philippines, as the
congress may unilaterally decide on the matter of wages, with or without consultation. In
addition, the state may rely on recommendations made by state appointed bodies (e.g.
committees or commissions) that review wages and remuneration for public sector workers.
These bodies then provide this information to the government who make the final decision on
wages and remuneration. The legal requirement to consult can vary by country. In some
countries there is a legal obligation to consult on wages. 162 Public sector unions in Japan, by
law, must be consulted regarding pay related issues. Base pay is based on the recommendations
of an independent examining committee. These recommendations form the basis of
remuneration for Japanese public sector workers, which is then centrally negotiated.163
In other countries there is not legal requirement for the government to consult public
sector trade unions. There is no binding obligation to consult public sector trade unions in Chile
regarding any work or employment issue, including wages. However, public sector unions are
consulted on a voluntary basis on wage related issues. While consultation requires no legal
obligations and offers limited influence on the wage setting process, it can be important as it
provides public sector unions with the opportunity to present their views on wage and
remuneration issues public sector workers. In some countries the government decides without
consultation. Base salary for public sector workers in the Russian Federation are set by
160
International Labor Conference, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (Articles 19,22,and 35 of the Constitution) Minimum Wages: Wage-fixing machinery
application and supervision, Seventy Ninth Session, IntenationalLabour Conference, report iii, 1992
161
Id.
162
Minimum Wage for Public Sector Employees, available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---
ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/genericdocument/wcms_474533.pdf (last accessed July 3,2020)
163
Id.
68
recommendations of the government. While public sector trade unions are consulted on
working conditions, base wages are determined and decided by the government.164
Does this necessarily mean that lack of a binding consultation results to possible abuse
of right? Currently, what is the trend with regard to the realization of public sector employees’
rights in Chile and in the Russian Federation and how does it necessarily affect the
government? Public sector employment in Chile is one of the lowest across OECD Countries.
In 2013, only 10.7% total employment was occupied in the public sector, almost half of OECD
Average.165 In 2016, public employees in Chile staged a strike and marched in order to demand
7.5 % pay increase, well above the 2.9% wage hike offered by the government. The strike,
which organizers said had 90% support among public sector workers, followed weeks of
fruitless negotiations between officials and 15 unions representing government employees.166
In 2018, warning strikes by public sector employees took place nationwide to demand pay
raises, disrupting public services in general.167 It is important to note that Article 19 of Chile’s
Constitution expressly prohibits the exercise of the right to strike for all workers of the state
and of the municipalities without distinction.168 Despite of such explicit provision found in the
Constitution, lack of negotiation and lack of bargaining power served as a motive for
government workers to conduct prohibited strikes prejudicing the delivery of public service.
In Russia, the base salary is set by the recommendations of the government and is
indexed to inflation. There is no subject timeframe for salary revision.169 Employment in the
civil service is governed by Federal Law No. 79-FZ, it applies to all state officials. Civil
164
Id.
165
OECD, Government at a Glance: Chile Fact Sheet, available at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/Chile.pdf (last
accessed August 21,2020)
166
Agencia EFE, Chilean public workers stage strike, march for higher pay, available at:
https://www.efe.com/efe/english/world/chilean-public-workers-stage-strike-march-for-higher-pay/50000262-
3054777 (last accessed August 21,2020)
167
GardaWorld, Chile: Public Sector Strike November 26; protest in Santiago,available at: 2018, warning
strikes by public sector employees took place nationwide to demand pay raises, disrupting public services in
general (last accessed August 21,2020)
168
CHILE’S CONST. art XIX par 16
169
OECD, Human Resource Management Country Profiles: Russian Federation, available at:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/pem/OECD%20HRM%20Profile%20-%20Russia.pdf, (last accessed August
21,2020)
69
servants are granted the right to unionise but not to strike. Some guarantees are however made
to civil servants in favour of life-long employment.170 In 2018, Russian Civil Servant Salaries
increased from its last increase in 2013, just before Russia’s economy entered a lengthy
financial crisis caused by a fall of oil prices, the collapse of the ruble and international sanctions
over Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. How does Russia compensate its
employees? Is it above or below the determined living wage? According to Russia’s federal
statistic agency, Rossat, the average federal civil servant salary in 2016 alone amounted to
115,700 rubles ($2,000) per month. By comparison, Russia’s living wage was set at 10,328
rubles ($175) per month in the third quarter of 2017.171 In Russia, although the determination
of public sector compensation is unilateral in character, the Russian government still provided
wage rates above the determined living wage.
Here in the Philippines, the recommendation and studies in order to increase wage,
usually come from the Department of Budget Management.Public consultations likewise occur
in order to further discuss the issue on wages. In the previous chapter, it was discussed that the
duty to participate in policy making as provided for under our Constititution, does not
necessarily mean membership in certain bodies where the policy making takes place. The
government however, deemed determining wage as a matter of great importance that it gave
both employers and workers a role in order to take part in a tripartite system of determining
wages, at least for the private sector in order to balance the interest between the two. Due to
the lack of bargaining methods in our framework, and due to the persistent violation of
employees’ rights to minimum wage, it is perhaps timely to address employees’ concerns
before possible chaotic consequences may arise. The consequence of such violation is apparent
in Chile, it had (1) lessening number of citizens interested in working for the government, and
(2) Although employees are constitutionally prohibited to conduct strikes, they resort to strikes
in order to bargain for the improvement the realization of their rights prejudicing the delivery
170
Id.
171
The Moscow Times, Russian Civil Servant Salaries to Increase for First Time Since 2013, available at :
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/12/13/russian-civil-servant-salaries-to-increase-for-first-time-since-
2013-a59931, (last accessed August 21,2020)
70
of public service as a whole. Lack of participation in wage determination did not really affect
Russia despite of the government’s obligation to consult public sector employees, because the
system already addressed possible issues with regard to living wage by providing wage way
above the determined living wage rate. The system for determining compensation of civil
servants in Russia likewise explicitly provides that inflation rates shall be taken into account
in the determination of the basic salary.
The Approach to Public Sector Wage in the United States

We have provided for an overview of the approach to Public Sector Wage in the
United States because our Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act 602) was pattered after the
U.S Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938172. Likewise, labor relations system in the Philippines
is patterned after that of the United States of America which is anchored on freedom of
association and collective bargaining. 173 Labor relations refers to the interactions between
the employer and employees or their representatives and the mechanism by which standards
and other terms and conditions of employment are negotiated, adjusted and enforced.174
Currently, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes standards for minimum wages,
overtime pay, recordkeeping and child labor. The standards affect more than 135 million
workers both full time and part time, in private and public sectors.175 The Act requires
employers, including the government itself to pay employees the prescribed hourly minimum
wage. Although FLSA provides for a federal minimum wage, minimum wage in the United
States varies from state to state, all of which are either equal or greater than the established
federal minimum wage176.
172
People v. Gatchalian, G.R Nos. L-12011-14, September 30,1958
173
The Philippines Workers’ Protection in a New Employment Relationship by Bach Macaraya, available at:
http://ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---dialogue/documents/genericdocument/wcms_205376.pdf
(last accessed August 5,2020)
174
AZUCENA, supra note 194 at 10
175
United States Department of Labor, Wages and Hours Worked: Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay, available
at: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/minwage.htm#who, (last accessed August 5,2020)
176
Minimum wages in the United States by state 2020 by Erin Duffin, available at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/238997/minimum-wage-by-us-state/ (last accessed august 5,2020)
71
In the United States, state and local government average wages each grew by 36
percent, whereas private-sector average wage grew 30 percent over the ten years, and federal
avergage wages grew only by 25 percent.177The differences in pay, could be influenced by
various factors such as the occupational differences and the type of industry involved. Despite
however of the differences in the growth of wage over time, minimum wage is applied to both
the public and private sector employers.
The Approach to Public Sector Wage of Economically Challenged Countries
Section 2 of the current Salary Standardization Law provides that “the compensation
scheme shall take into consideration the financial capacity of the government”178, therefore,
our congress deemed financial capacity as an important factor in determining the salary rates.
We now therefore examine the approach of various countries with regard to determining wage
rates of public sector employees.
In selecting the countries that are to be mentioned below, the proponent restricted the
comparison to ASEAN countries, the proponent likewise made use of the World Population
Review’s list of the poorest countries in Asia which ranked the poorest countries in Asia based
on GDP per capita, which is often considered as an indicator of the standard of living in a given
country as it reflects the average wealth of each resident.179
India
Like the Philippine Constitution, the Indian Constitution provides that the state shall
endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation, or in any other way to
all workers, a “living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full
177
State of Oregon, Employment Department, Government and Private-Sector Average Wages by Erik Knoder,
available at: https://www.qualityinfo.org/-/government-and-private-sector-average-wages (last accessed August
5,2020)
178
SALARY STANDARDIZATION LAW OF 2019, §2
179
World Population Review, Poorest Asian Countries 2020,available at:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poorest-asian-countries (last accessed August 5,2020)
72
employment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities”180 The right as provided for by
the Constitution covers all workers.
India was one of the first developing countries to introduce a minimum wage policy,
but India’s system of minimum wages is also one of the most complicated in the world. There
is no single answer to the question regarding what certainly is the minimum wage in India,
because the Minimum Wage Act itself of India does not determine any criteria for the
determination of the minimum wage.181 In India, there is an estimated 1,709 different rates
across the country, at times set somewhat arbitrarily, without full consultation with social
partners, revised only about every five years, and applicable to an estimated 66 percent of wage
workers. 182 Although there was a national minimum wage floor introduced in 1991, it is not
legally binding183 it resulted to non-compliance, and various employees received wage far
below the established national minimum wage.
Given the complicated wage system in India, do public sector employees suffer low
wage pays as compared to private sector employees? Through research, the proponent was able
to determine that public sector employees in India generally enjoy an advantage in terms of
wage. In India, the Central Government periodically constitutes a Pay Commission to evaluate
and recommend revisions of salaries and pensions, for its employees. The total expenditure of
the government with regard to the salaries and pensions of its employees varies on a year to
year basis, taking into account their various needs.184 In 2015, according to PRS Legislatvie
research, the government expenditure on pay, allowance and pension is expected to increase
by 23.6%.185 This was proven to be true, in 2016, the Finance Minister Arun Jaintley claimed
180
INDIA, CONST. Art 43
181
International Labor Organization, India Wage Report Wage policies for decent work and inclusive growth,
available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---sro-
new_delhi/documents/publication/wcms_638305.pdf (last accessed August 5,2020)
182
Id.
183
Id.
184
PRS Legislative Research, Overview of Central Government Employees, available at:
https://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/parliament_or_policy_pdfs/1449721528~~Vital%20Stats-
%20Overview%20of%20Central%20Government%20Employees.pdf , (last accessed August 7,2020)
185
Id.
73
that “salaries in public sector are “distinctively higher” than the private sector”.186 In pure
numbers, government employees at entry level makes much more than their counterparts in
the private sector, that was established by a survey done by Indian Institute of Management in
Ahmedabad. The difference in terms of salary is truly apparent, according to a report, a driver
working for the government takes home Rs 25,000 a month, while private sector companies
pay about Rs 11,000 for the same job. The trend holds for almost all jobs. 187While private
sector employees suffer mainly because of the various minimum wage rates, the lack of criteria
for the determination of minimum wage itself and due to non-compliance by various industry
players, the rights of public sector employees are well protected as the government remain to
be responsive to pay hikes.
Myanmar
Myanmar’s governing law with regard to minimum wage is the Minimum Wage Law
of 2013. It was enacted in order to meet with the essential needs of the workers and their
families. Although Myanmar has not ratified the ILO’s Minimum Wage Convention 131, its
Minimum Wage Law largely reflects it requirements. The minimum wage in Myanmar is set
through an open and transparent process of tripartite social dialogue between the government,
representative employers and worker’s organization According to ILO, the introduction of
minimum wage produced a result of reducing poverty and inequality. 188It should however be
noted that Myanmar’s Minimum Wage Law excludes civil service personnel in its
application189.
186
Mayank Jain, Government Employees earn (much) more than private sector ones-but only at entry-level,
available at : https://scroll.in/article/810922/government-employees-earn-much-more-than-private-sector-ones-
but-only-at-the-entry-level (last accessed August 6,2020)
187
Id.
188
International Labour Organization, Minimum Wage a step forward for democracy and sustainable
development, available at: https://www.ilo.org/yangon/press/WCMS_630131/lang--en/index.htm (last accessed
August 8,2020)
189
Myanmar, The Minimum Wage Law, 2013 (The PyidaungsuHluttaw Law No. 7/2013), March 22,2013
available at:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/90652/114148/F1221961295/MMR90652%20Eng.pdf
(last accessed August 8,2020)
74
Salaries of Civil Servants in Myanmar is likewise determined through a legislative

process. According to the Civil Service Personnel Act, the cabinet decides policy, approves
organizational structures and agrees on the salary scale of civil servants. Myanmar’s Civil
Service Personnel Act applies to all government employees other than the military and the
police. In recognition of the fact that there was low pay in Myanmar’s civil service, the
government announced in March 2015 a substantial salary increase for civil servants.190 In
2015, the Myanmar Pay, Compensation and Human Management Review was undertaken in
response to the Government of Myanmar’s request for advice to inform compensation and
human resource policies that reflect country-specific challenges, the review was jointly
conducted by the Government of Myanmar and the World Bank.191 The review aimed to
develop capacity of government agencies responsible for wage-bill and human resources
192
management. According to Shabih Ali Mohib, programme leader at the world bank,
“Myanmar is in a good place on the public sector wage bill and there are opportunities to ensure
compensation levels remain attractive and suitable”. 193 Undergoing the review highlights the
government’s awareness of the previously low salaries received by civil service employees and
it likewise emphasizes the government’s commitment to make government’s compensation
scheme more competitive and responsive to the needs of civil service employees. In April
2015, Myanmar increased the salaries of its employees, and even doubled some of them. In
April 2018, the government considered that civil servants contributed satisfactorily to the
ongoing reforms and deemed it proper to reward employees with better salaries. The salary
scales for clerical staff and officers was adjusted to align with the new minimum wage, their
190
David Hook, Tin Maung Than and Kim N.B Ninh, Conceptualizing Public Sector Reform in Myanmar,
Policy Dialogue Brief Series No. 2, June 2015, available at: https://asiafoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/Conceptualizing-Public-Sector-Reform-in-Myanmar_Policy-Brief_ENG.pdf (last
accessed August 7,2020)
191
World Bank, Myanmar Pay, Compensation and Human Resources Management Review, available at:
https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Conceptualizing-Public-Sector-Reform-in-
Myanmar_Policy-Brief_ENG.pdf (last accessed August 7,2020)
192
Id.
193
Global New Light of Myanmar, Public Sector Wage Bill compares favourably with similar countries
Myanmar-WB joint report, available at: https://www.globalnewlightofmyanmar.com/public-sector-wage-bill-
compares-favourably-similar-countries-myanmar-wb-joint-report/ (last accessed August 7,2020)
75
wage increased by 20 percent, while all other officers increased by 10 percent. 194 This truly
highlights the fact that although civil servant employees were excluded under Myanmar’s
minimum wage law, the government is committed to improve the living conditions of its lowly
public sector employees.
Despite of the possible impact of increasing wages of public sector employees to the
state’s budget, it can be observed that for both India and Myanmar, economic difficulties did
not in any way serve as an excuse for the government to treat government employees with
arbitrariness. Throughout the years, the two states further uplifted the lives of their employees
by increasing the amount of wage that they receive.
In India, despite of the complicated minimum wage laws, government employees still
received equitable wage sufficient to provide for the needs of their family. Despite of being
ranked as the 10th poorest country in Asia, India was still committed in providing adequate
compensation to its own employees and even provided entry level wage that is considerably
more than the entry level wage of private sector employees.
In Myanmar, despite of excluding civil service employees from the application of the
minimum wage law and despite of providing a salary below minimum wage to its employees
prior to 2015, the government slowly became aware of the inequity that the old system posed.
Since 2015, there has been a continuously improving approach towards improving
compensation schemes of civil service employees, and to provide lowly civil service
employees with a wage that is not less than that of the established minimum wage rates.
3.Philippine Law Provisions vs the Minimum Wage Convention

The abovementioned approaches of various countries differ as to the method of
determining compensation to public sector employees, but the common ground between the
above methods is its goal to provide public sector employees a wage that would be able to
afford an individual employee “a reasonable standard of life.” It highlights the concern that
194
Thiha Ko Ko, Civil Servant Salaries Upped by at least 10pc, available at:
https://www.mmtimes.com/news/civil-servant-salaries-upped-least-10pc.html (last accessed August 7,2020)
76
public sector employees too have the right to attain a living wage as much as each and every
other employee.
Philippines, during the discussion with regard to the Minimum Wage Convention
recommended “The maintenance of present minimum wage levels, with upward adjustments
if cost of living continues to increase despite price stabilisation efforts.195The report of the
Philippines even argued for the advantage of having a general minimum wage which could be
differentiated by region according to cost of living196, a method that it adopts as of today for
the private sector. However, during the discussion, the Philippines had a less interventioanlist
approach as it proposed to eliminate the government’s intervention in wage determination in
the private sector through compulsory arbitration, recommending “A return to free collective
bargaining as soon as possible for determining wages and working conditions above minimum
standards”.197
Although the Philippines is not a signatory to the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention,
1970 (No. 131), it is important to highlight that the Philippine government in its effort to
improve every employees’ standard for living created a similar framework, at least for the
private sector employees.
Article 2 of the Convention states that “ (1)Minimum wages shall have the force of law
and shall not be subject to abatement, and failure to apply them shall make the person or
persons concerned liable to appropriate penal or other sanctions; (2) Subject to the provisions
of paragraph 1 of this Article, the freedom of collective bargaining shall be fully respected.198
In 1951, Republic Act No. 602 otherwise known as the Minimum Wage Law was enacted,
Section 3 provided that every employer shall pay his employees a wage rates fixed by law, it
even covered public sector employees199 Currently, Article 99 of the Labor Code provides that
195
The role of the ILO in the development of minimum wages by Andres Marinakis, available at :
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_180793.pdf
(last accessed July 27,2020)
196
Id.
197
Id.
198
Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970, (No.131) available at:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C131#:~:text=1.
,that%20coverage%20would%20be%20appropriate. (last accessed July 25,2020)
199
MINIMUM WAGE LAW, §3.
77
minimum wage for agricultural and non-agricultural employees and workers in each and every
region in the country shall be prescribed by Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity
Boards.200 Under our law and jurisprudence, statutory minimum wage is the lowest rate fixed
by law that an employer can pay his workers. Any amount of compensation which is less than
the minimum rate is considered as an underpayment which violates the law. 201 The purpose of
our laws and the convention is one and the same, the goal is to provide for a minimum standard
of wage that each and every employer should comply with and any payment which is less is
deemed to be contrary to law. It highlights the importance of minimum wage as a form of
human right, that each and every worker should at the very least have.
Article 3 of the Convention lays down the elements that each member state shall take
into account in determining the level of minimum wages it includes the (a) needs of workers
and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, cost of living,
social benefits and relative living standards of other social groups, (b) economic factors,
including the requirement of economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability
of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment. The Philippines, under its initial
minimum wage law provided that minimum wages established under this act shall be as nearly
adequate as is economically feasible to maintain the minimum standard of living necessary for
the health, efficiency and general well-being of employees. In the determination of minimum
wage the following factors shall be considered (1) The cost of living; (2) The wages established
for work of like or comparable character by collective agreements or arbitration awards; (3)
The wages paid for work of like or comparable character by employers who voluntarily
maintain reasonable standard; (4) Fair return of the capital invested. 202 Currently, under the
Labor Code, the regional board shall consider the following criteria for minimum wage fixing
(a) The demand for living wages, (b) Wage adjustment vis-a-vis the consumer price index; (c)
The cost of living and changes or increases therein; (d) The needs of workers and their families;
(d) The need to induce industries to invest in the countryside; (f) Improvements in standards
200
LABOR CODE, Art 99.
201
202
MINIMUM WAGE LAW, §4.
78
of living; (g) The prevailing wage levels; (h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to
pay of employers; (i) Effect on employment generation and family income; and (j) The
equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives of economic and social
development.203 As compared to the convention, it can be observed that our laws provided a
more expansive criteria in determining minimum wage and through the years, from the
previous minimum wage law to the current provision incorporated in our very own Labor
Code, the criteria was further improved in the effort to equalize the footing of the employees
in terms of getting a living wage. It is however unfortunate that the as compared to the
Minimum Wage Law which is likewise applicable to the public sector employees, currently,
the Labor Code provision which prescribes a criteria for the determination of the minimum
wage does not apply to public sector employees, no such standard is placed in the Salary
Standardization Law despite of the government’s declared policy with regard to providing all
government personnel a “just and equitable compensation”.
Lastly, Article 4 of the Convention obliges each member State to create and/or maintain
a machinery adapted to national conditions and requirements whereby minimum wage for
groups of wage earners covered in Article 1 thereof can be fixed and adjusted from time to
time. Provision shall likewise be made in connection with the establishment, operation and
modification of such machinery for full consultation with representative organisations of
employers and workers concerned or where no such organisation exists, representatives of
employers and workers concerned. The last paragraph of the said article provides that wherever
it is appropriate to the nature of the minimum wage fixing machinery, provision shall also be
made for the direct participation in its operation of (a) representatives of organisations of
employers and workers concerned or, where no such organisation exist, representatives of
employers and workers concerned, on a basis of equality; (b) persons having recognised
competence for representing general interests of the country and appointed after full
consultation with representative organisations of employers and workers concerned, where
such organisation exist and such consultation is in accordance with national law or practice.
Under our very own laws, the National Wages and Productivity Commission, which acts as a
203
LABOR CODE, Art 124.
79
national consultative and advisory body to the President and Congress on matters related to
wages is composed of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Director-General of the
National Economic and Development Authority and two members from each from the workers
and employers sectors. Likewise, the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, the
board which is responsible for determining and fixing minimum wage rates applicable in their
region, provinces or industries and the Board which is responsible for issuing wage orders is
composed of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment and Regional
Directors of National Economic Development Authority and the Department of Trade and
Industry and two members each from the workers and employers sector. Both the Convention
and our very own Labor Code adopted a framework with regard to minimum wage that takes
greatly allows workers an avenue, through participating in the board itself to argue or bargain
for their rights.
Comparing the abovementioned provisions side to side, clearly we could see that our
very own framework for the private sector proved to be more expansive than that prescribed
by the Convention itself. Indeed, by carefully analyzing the provisions of both the ILO’s
Minimum Wage-Fixing Convention and our labor law, the Philippines did not necessarily
reject the principles that it seeks to uphold.
Current Trend of the International Labour Organization Member States

Labour protection is at the heart of the mandate of the ILO. It is instrumental for
204
achieving decent work and for contributing to social justice and social peace. Important
progress has been made in advancing labour protection among ILO member States. Minimum
wage systems have been established or strengthened in many countries in order to address
working poverty and inequality. 205
“All workers” should enjoy adequate protection in
accordance with the Decent Work Agenda, guided by International Labour Standards and
taking into account different national circumstances. Regulations and institutions that govern
204
Resolution Concerning the Recurrent Discussion on Social Protection (Labour Protection) available at :
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---
relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_380781.pdf (last accessed July 26,2020)
205
Id.
80
labour protection need to keep pace with the transformations in the world of work.206
According to the Minimum Wage Policy Guide of the ILO which reflected the latest global
review of national laws and practices undertaken at the ILO, as well as on years of experience
accumulated in context of ILO cooperation with Governments and social partners around the
world, minimum wage exist in more than 90 percent of International LabourOrganisation’s
(ILO) member States.207 Public sector employees , are indeed often excluded-in whole or in
part from the scope of labour laws, including provisions of wage fixing. However, according
to the ILO, this does not imply that no minimum wage applies to them since administrative
laws or arrangements, which include pay scales, can cover them. Lower pay scales should
normally be adjusted to be set no lower than the minimum wage.208
4.Should there be any obligation on the part of the Philippine government to provide
minimum wage to public sector employees?
By adopting a substantially similar framework that has been used by various States to
provide minimum wage to the public workers sector, the Philippines, although not a signatory
to the Convention 131, created its very own framework to provide a minimum wage to private
sector employees. Public Sector employees are governed by a different framework, and indeed
it’s highly dependent to the government’s national fund, but without having a system that fails
to take into account various factors that the government itself considers important for private
sector employees especially the with regard to the demand for living wages, wage adjustment
vis-a-vis the consumer price index, the cost of living and changes or increases therein, the
needs of workers and their families, the need to induce industries to invest in the countryside,
improvements in standards of living, the prevailing wage levels, there exists great inequality
between public sector employees and private sector employees. The fact of inequality was
apparent when we have presented the table of salary differences from 1989 up to present, the
fact that in the recent times, the wage has been increasing does not assure us that it would be
206
Id.
207
Id.
208
Id.
81
more equitable and just in the years to come especially because of the fact that not much of
change has been brought into the framework of determining salary rates.
The Role of Customary International Law

The proponent argues that providing minimum wage to “all” employees, through time,
and through the development of human rights became a customary international law. Since it
has become part of customary international law, it should be deemed part of Philippine laws
according to Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution. Custom or customary
international law means “a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a
sense of legal obligation.(Restatement)209 This statement contains two basic elements of
custom : the material factor, that is how states behave and the psychological factor or subjective
factor, that is why they behave the way they do.210
Pepperdine University (California) Professor of Law Roozbeh Baker explains that
since 1970s, several scholars have started questioning the legitimacy of the abovementioned
traditional definition of custom, by calling for a change in the interpretation of what actually
defines international customary law. 211 Such scholars have often argued that the signing of a
treaty or a convention with special regards to the ones concerning human rights provision, even
when it creates new legal norms, may be seen in itself as evidence of the creation of new
international customary law.212 By drafting from the International Court of Justice finding in
North Sea Continental Shelf, in which the court affirms that “widespread and representative
participation in a convention” as well as the passage of a “short period of time” may suffice to
establish an international customary norm binding on all states, this strain of idea goes further.
As a consequence, the role of opinion juris in the formation of customary law becomes
predominant against state practice, being the latter only a factor of secondary importance to
209
JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J, INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, 10 (2009 ed)
210
Id.
211
Roozbeh (Rudy) B. Baker, Customary International Law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New
Debates, 21 EUR. J. INT’L L. 173, 174 (2010).
212
City University of New York Law Revie, Labour Standards in International Law: All States Should Have an
Obligation to Punish Misconducts of Multinational Enterprises Under International Customary Law by Andrea
Scozzaro, available at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=clr (Last
accessed July 30,2020)
82
prove effectiveness of a general acceptance of a rule, rather than a manifestation of single

political wills from states.213 In this respect, Lena Ayuob, a scholar argues that a number of
provisions deriving from international treaties and conventions regarding the protection of
workers rights, even if not directly binding for signatory states, are so widely accepted and
followed that they fulfil the first requirement, namely state practice, for international
customary law provisions to become recognized as such. Through the analysis of the actual
number of states signing to relevant international documents, Ayuob reaches the conclusion
that there is strong evidence to sustain that, for what concerns labor rights regarding forced
labor, minimum age, minimum wage and hours of work, most states recognize and consistently
assure through practice such rights. As for the second requirement, namely opinion juris, all
states in which the enforcement of provisions in favour of workers being born at international
level amounts to the level of state practice, such enforcement is a result of state recognition of
a binding legal obligation with respect to international labor rights.214
To further elaborate on the argument that providing minimum wage to all employees
is customary international law, binding on all states all over the world, including the
Philippines, we will discuss the factors that make a custom, a customary international law. The
initial factor to determine the existence of custom is the actual behaviour of states (usus). This
includes several elements: duration, consistency and generality of the practice of states. 215 The
International Labour Organization (ILO) , one of the most respected United Nations (UN)
organ, has the primary responsibility for oversight of international labor laws. 216As previously
mentioned, more than 90 per cent of 187217 ILO member states created a legal framework that
213
Id.
214
Lena Ayoub, Nike Just Does It – and Why the United States Shouldn’t: The United States’ International
Obligation to Hold MNCs Accountable for Their Labor Rights Violations Abroad, 11 DEPAUL BUS. L.J. 395,
422-23 (1999).
215
Id.
216
Tulsa Journal of Comparaive and International Law Customary International Labor Laws and Their
Application in Hungary,Poland and Czech Republic by Leslie Deak available at
https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=tjcil (last accessed July
27,2020)
217
About the ILO, available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/lang--
en/index.htm#:~:text=agency%2C%20since%201919%20the%20ILO,for%20all%20women%20and%20men.
83
ensures compliance with minimum wage laws over the years since 1929, when the first
Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention was ratified into by 103 States.218 The concern
of wages has been present at the ILO from the very beginning of the organization. The Labour
Charter itself included the Treaty of Versailles, which later became the ILO Constitution,
already established the need for satisfactory wages. Just after enunciating that labour should
not be regarded as a commodity, and the right of association, the third guiding principle
considered important: “The payment of the employed a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable
standard of life as this is understood in their time and country. The Preamble to the ILO’s
Constitution even expresses the concern on the conditions of labour, and among the main areas
of improvement it mentions “the provision of an adequate living wage” as well as “the
recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value”. 219 Article 2 of the
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights provide that Each State Party to the present
Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and
cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources,
with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present
Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
What governs therefore is the principle of “progressive realization” which means “that state is
obliged to undertake a program of activities. and to realize those rights which are recognized
by the Economic Covenant While the obligation of progressive realization is limited by
resource constraints, the Economic Covenant indicates that priority should be given to social
welfare and that the level of effort should increase over time.220 The Covenant itself guarantees
that through time, each member state should consistently strive to improve the realization of
rights that the Covenant guarantees, it includes among others, the right to favourable conditions
of work and the right to adequate standards of living. Previously, we have established earlier
in our discussion about Myanmar and India that poverty in anyway did not serve as an excuse
218
List of Ratifications by Convention and by Country available at
https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc91/pdf/rep-iii-2.pdf (last accessed July 27,2020)
219
The Role of ILO in the development of minimum wages by Andres Marinakis available at
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_180793.pdf
220
84
with regard to these States to improve the lives of its own employees. Minimum wage rates,
across ASEAN countries are in fact rising gradually to match the region’s increased cost of
living and boost economic demand. To combat inflation and prevent any outbreaks of labor
unrest, ASEAN countries have been pushing for higher minimum wage levels and enacting
new labor laws to protect workers’ rights. 221
Since the existence of state practice has been established, it becomes necessary to
determine why do states behave the way they do.222Opinio Juris or the belief that a certain form
of behaviour is obligatory, is what makes practice an international rule. 223 Indeed, ILO is not
the only source from which international labor law arises. Many human rights instruments,
international and regional include provisions on labor standards.224
The United Nations became a cradle for the development of new international law on
human rights. Philippines as a member state of UN, assumed the obligation to continuously
promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social
progress and development.225 Likewise, all members of the UN pledge to take joint and
separate action in cooperation with the UN, for the achievement of the purpose previously
mentioned.226During the United Nations assembly in 2015, the UN discussed the 2030
Sustainable Development Agenda. 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) were discussed
in relation to the Agenda, Goal 8 calls for “sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic
growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all” and highlights the importance
of achieving equal pay for equal work of equal value, and protecting labour rights. 227 Well-
designed and effective minimum wages can contribute to these objectives. They can help
221
ASEAN Briefing, Minimum Wages in ASEAN: How are they calculated?, available at:
https://www.aseanbriefing.com/news/minimum-wages-in-asean-how-are-they-calculated/ (last accessed August
7,2020)
222
223
Id.
224
Tulsa Journal of Comparaive and International Law Customary International Labor Laws and Their
Application in Hungary,Poland and Czech Republic by Leslie Deak available at
https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=tjcil (last accessed July
27,2020)
225
U.N Charter, Art 55, (a).
226
U.N Charter, Art 56
227
Minimum Wage Policy Guide, available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---
protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_508566.pdf (last accessed July 27,2020)
85
ensure a “just and equitable share to the fruits of progress for all, and a “minimum wage to all
employed and in need of such protection. Poorly designed minimum wages, by contrast, can
put workers’ well-being at risk, undermine effective implementation and risk encouraging
informality.228. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights includes the right to
work (Article 6), to favourable conditions of work (Article 7), to special assistance for families
(Article 10), to adequate standards of living (Article 11).229 The Philippines, together with
various States is a party, not only to the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights but also in the abovementioned covenant. The states are therefore bound both
internally and in its foreign relations, “to bring its laws and practices into accord with accepted
international obligations and not to introduce new laws or practices which would be at variance
with such obligations.230 The Covenant itself compels and obliges member states to protect the
previously mentioned rights.
Since providing for minimum wage in relation to attaining adequate standards of living,
is part of the customary international law, the Philippines has the legal obligation to provide
each and every worker the rights guaranteed therein. There seems to be no rhyme or reason
why the Philippines solely adopted a framework that’s substantially similar, and even more
expansive than that of Convention 131 for private sector employees in terms of providing for
Minimum Wage. As shown by practice of states and other legal obligations, every worker is
entitled to the same. To equalize the treatment of both public sector and private sector
employees, the Philippine government should likewise adopt a framework that would allow
public sector employees the realization of their guaranteed right to a living wage.
228
Id.
229
230
Id.
86
CHAPTER 04: LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

In this Chapter, we will first focus on comparing two aspects that greatly differ in the
framework of compensation of private sector employees as compared to public sector
employees. We will focus on two aspects that greatly differ between the two, aspects which
are likewise taken into account by the other countries that we have discussed in the last chapter
which are minimum wage and the avenue to bargain. We have previously established that
providing minimum wage is essential for a person to realize the “right to a living wage”, which
takes into account the attainment of the needs of a person and his family, it should provide
them existence worthy of human dignity. Avenue for bargaining on the other hand is important
as it serves as an instrument to balance the interest of both the workers and the employer,
because jurisprudence itself recognizes that the employer is placed on a higher footing
especially through their exercise of management prerogatives. In Chapter 3, we have
established that in some countries, the avenue for bargaining through consultation is important,
although it may not necessarily be legally binding because it provides public sector unions with
the opportunity to present their views on wage and remuneration issues public sector workers.
We have likewise provided that lack of avenue for bargaining wouldn’t necessarily have
prejudicial effects, if the government satisfies the true demand for a living wage and if public
sector employees don’t feel any form of discrimination with regard to the realization of such
right.
1. Minimum Wage
In sustaining minimum wage legislation, the U.S Supreme Court has made an
observation that equally applies to the Philippine setting, thus –
The legislature was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the “sweating
system”, the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost
of living, thus making their very helplessness the occasion of a most injurious competition. The
87
legislature had the right to consider its minimum wage requirement would be an important aid
in carrying out its policy of protection.231
A person’s needs increase as his means increase. This is true not only as to food but as
to everything else –education, clothing, entertainment, etc. The law guarantees the laborer a
fair and just wage. The minimum must be fair and just. The “minimum wage” can by no means
imply the actual minimum, some margin or leeway must be provided, over and above the
minimum, to take care of contingencies such as increase of prices of commodities and increase
in wants and to provide means for a desirable improvement in his mode of living.232 The
establishment of the minimum wage benefits directly the low paid employees, who receive
inadequate wage on which to support themselves and their families. It benefits all wage earners
indirectly by setting a floor below which their remuneration cannot fall. It raises the standard
of competition among employers, since it would protect the fair-minded employer from the
competition of the employer who pays his workers a wage below subsistence. Lastly, it should
be noted that the establishment of minimum wages is a prerequisite to the adoption of needed
social security program. This program would require the contribution from the employees
themselves and it would be unjust to require such a contribution of those whose wages are not
enough for their subsistence. It is not reasonable to ask a man to set aside something for the
future when he does not have enough to eat today.233 As previously discussed in Chapter 2, the
framers of the Constitution, in delegating the task of providing compensation for “other
government employees” to the executive and the legislative branch of government, had strong
concerns about the lives of lowly government employees. It is apparent in the journal of the
Constutional Commission that they did not in any way intend that government employees
should receive anything less than the amount of what is considered by law as living wage.
Minimum wage has been deemed by law and jurisprudence as essential, it even stated
that an employer cannot exempt himself from the liability to pay minimum wages because of
231
232
Atok Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc v. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association, G.R No. L-5276, March
3,1953
233
AZUCENA, JR., supra note 2 at 319 citing Explanatory Note, H.B 1476 and S.B No.22
88
poor financial conditions of the company, as it is something that does not depend on the
employer’s ability to pay.234 If the employer cannot pay a subsistence wage, then he should not
continue his operations unless he improves his methods and equipment so as to make the
payment of the minimum wage feasible for him; otherwise the employer is wasting the toil of
workers and the material resources used in the employment.235 The right of an employee to
minimum wage is deemed by law as a right that cannot be waived. According to Azucena, the
acceptance by an employee of the wage paid him without objection does not give rise to
estoppel precluding him from suing for the difference between the amount received and the
amount he should have received pursuant to a valid minimum wage law.236 A laborer who
accepts a lower wage than what the law sets as minimum wage for laborers shall be entitled to
receive the deficiency.237Since this right is something that cannot be waived, waiver to the
right to receive such amount of wage should not be implied when a person enters into public
service. In Chapter 2, we have discussed that the framers of the Constitution made mention
that although government employees shouldn’t me motivated by compensation, it should be
noted that government employees have likewise material needs to be fulfilled. Even the framers
of our Constitution believe that public service shouldn’t entail any sacrifice of economic rights.
It should be noted that in 1951 under Republic Act No. 602, otherwise known as the
Minimum Wage Law, the obligation to provide a minimum wage applied to both employers in
238
the private enterprise and the government itself. It stated that the minimum wage to be
established shall be as nearly as is economically feasible to maintain the minimum standard of
living necessary for the health, efficiency and general well-being of employees. For the criteria
for the determination of the minimum wage, it was stated that the Secretary of Labor and the
Wage Board shall consider the following factors (1) Cost of Living (2) Wages established for
work of like or comparable character by collective agreements or arbitration awards (3) The
234
235
236
Id.
237
Id.
238
An Act to Establish A Minimum Wage Law, and For Other Purposes, [Minimum Wage Law], Republic Act
No. 602, §2 (1951)
89
wages paid for work of like or comparable character by employers who voluntarily maintain
reasonable standard; and (4) Fair return of capital invested. It should be noticed that through
this criterion, wages may be influenced by collective agreements and arbitration awards, it does
not however mean that the determination of wages was left to the sole discretion of the
contracting parties. When the framers of the 1987 Constitution discussed the concept of
minimum wage, Mr.Ople emphasized that putting “modes of dispute settlement and
strengthening of collective bargaining and negotiations” does not imply that the government is
abandoning minimum wage fixing as a national policy. He even recognized that minimum
wage orders were enacted in order to mitigate plight of Filipino workers, benefiting most of
the workers especially those organized workers who had no unions and collective bargaining
agreements. 239Mr.Lerum discussed that wage orders and the minimum wage orders and living
allowances after the Minimum Wage Act were issued by the former President Marcos in
accordance with Amendment No. 6 with the Concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa.240
For the Private Sector, the minimum wage rates for agricultural and non-agricultural
employees and workers in each and every region of the country shall be those prescribed by
the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.241 The minimum wage fixed by law is
242
mandatory, thus it is non-waivable and non-negotiable. The employer cannot exempt
himself from liability to pay minimum wage because of poor financial condition of the
company; the payment of minimum wage is not dependent on the employer’s ability to pay. 243
There are four factors that influence the fixing of minimum wage, namely: (1) Needs of
workers and their families which includes the Demand for living wage, Wage adjustment
vis-à-vis Consumer Price Index (CPI), Cost of living and changes therein Needs of workers
and their families and the Improvements in standards of living, (2) Capacity to pay which
includes the Fair return on capital invested and capacity to pay of employers and Productivity
(3) Comparable wages and incomes which considers the Prevailing wage levels and lastly
239
JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, NO. 49, August 6,1986
240
Id.
241
LABOR CODE, art 99
242
PAM Co v. PAMEA-FFW, GR.No L-35254, January 29,1973
243
De Racho v. Municipality of Ilagan, G.R No L -23542, January 2, 1986
90
(4) Requirements of economic and social development, which takes into account the Need
to induce industries to invest in the countryside, the Effects on employment generation and
family income and the Equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives of
economic social development.244
For Public Sector, the wage is determined by law, which is the Salary Standardization
law, the minimum wage would be the Salary Grade 1. The current increases the minimum
salary from P11,068, that amount will rise to P11,551 this year; P12,034 in 2021; P12,517 in
2022; and P13,000 in 2023 in order to remain competitive with the minimum wage in the
National Capital Region.245As mentioned in Chapter 2, if we take into account the personnel
economic relief allowance (PERA) and the additional compensation (AdCom) , the total
amount of salary received by salary grade 1 employees would be greater than their private
sector counterparts, such allowances are however were deemed by law as a fringe benefit, and
should not be considered as part of the basic wage. Likewise, it is worthwhile to reiterate that
the “allowance” that was incorporated to address the economic difficulties, suffers the same
issue, it’s the very same amount that was determined almost a decade ago. We shouldn’t be
secured by the fact that it would be sufficient to address the possible changes in the future. The
proponent suggests that instead of leaving the law as such, a law that would be complemented
by legislation providing for “allowances” to address possible inflation rates, it is best to fix the
Salary Standardization Law itself by factoring in a specific criteria such as the needs of the
workers and their families, the demand for a living wage and other matters such as the inflation
rate .
As previously discussed in Chapter 3, during the crafting of the Salary Standardization

Law 5, the Congress of the issues of government employees, issues that truly hindered them to
enjoy the right to a living wage. The framers of the Salary Standardization Law recognized
244
How is Minimum Wage Determined? available at: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/featured/how-is-
minimum-wage-determined/#:~:text=Tier%201,which%20insures%20better%20workers%20protection. (Last
accessed June 24,2020)
245
Still left behind, available at: https://opinion.inquirer.net/126598/still-left-behind (last accessed June
20,2020)
91
that previous salaries is deemed unfair and inadequate by most government personnel
especially those under Salary Grades 1 to 16, which comprise about 84 percent of the
government workforce. The determination of the amount was however greatly influenced by
the issue of where the funding should come from, and if the government could truly afford the
increases, as it has been proposed. Currently, the bill does not provide any criteria on how
wages are to be determined and on how it will be adjusted accordingly to answer the problem
that for twenty two years, the salary provided under the Salary Standardization Law provides
for a wage less than the amount of the prevailing minimum wage. Adjusting the minimum
wage or providing a minimum wage in government would benefit all wage earners indirectly
by setting a floor below which their remuneration cannot fall. Adjusting the minimum wage
by putting a criteria on which it would be based would fix the system by ensuring that every
employee enjoys the right to a living wage, as previously mentioned in Chapter 1 and 3, it is a
right guaranteed by our Constitution, by international instruments and by customary
international law.
2.Avenue for Bargaining
Article XIII, Section 3 paragraph 3 of the 1987 Constitution states that the workers
shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits
as may be provided by law.246 According to Fr.Bernas, the right is not a guarantee of labor’s
membership in boards, although the Constitution does not prohibit labor membership in
boards. The guarantee does not empower labor to participate in the charting of corporate
programs and policies. What it does guarantee is the for labor to have a participation in arriving
at those decisions which affect their rights and benefits through grievance procedures,
conciliation proceedings, voluntary mode of settling disputes, and collective bargaining and
negotiations. It should be noted however that the scope of what can be bargained for could be
less for workers of the public sector than those of the private. For instance, the matter of
246
PHIL. CONST., art XVIII, §3
92
compensation of government workers is in the hands of the legislators and not of the
administrators.247
For the Private Sector, the Labor Code provides that the duty to bargain collectively is
an obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purposes
of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and
conditions of employment.248 Collective bargaining is one of the democratic frameworks
under the Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to
create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace.249 Collective bargaining is a means of
ensuring workers’ participation in decision-making.250 It serves as an avenue for both the
management and the laborer to meet half way to have the most equitable option for both parties.
The product of the collective bargaining process is a Collective Bargaining Agreement. It is a
contract executed upon the request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees, incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with
251
respect to Wages, Hours of Work and All Other terms and conditions of employment.
Although the collective bargaining agreement is contractual in nature, proper safeguards are
placed by law in order to settle the differences between the parties and in order to check
whether the agreement is compliant with the minimum standards set forth by laws. With
respect to the economic and non-economic provisions other than the representation aspect, it
252
shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. Aside from the
collective bargaining agreement itself, some terms and conditions of employment are fixed by
the employment contract. Employees from the private sector are likewise granted the right to
strike.253
247
248
LABOR CODE, art 264
249
Kiok Loy v. NLRC, G.R No. L-54334, January 22, 1986
250
CESARIO ALVERO AZUCENA, JR., THE LABOR CODE WITH COMMENTS AND CASES VOLUME II-A:
LABOR RELATIONS,376 (2016)
251
Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez, G.R No. 102132, March 19,1993
252
LABOR CODE, art 265
253
93
The highest law of the land guarantees to government employees the right to organize
and to negotiate, but not the right to strike.254 The provisions of the present Constitution on the
matter declares that “the right to self-organization shall not be denied to government
employees”; that the State “shall guarantee the right of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to
strike in accordance with law”, and that said workers shall be entitled to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work and a living wage xxx” (and) also participate in policy and decision
making process affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.”255
For the public sector employees, the salary standardization law is made to apply for
four years, and there are varying rates of increase in salary, depending on one’s salary grade.
Upon full implementation, basic salaries will increase by a weighted average of 23.24 percent
by 2023.Employees under Salary Grades 10 to 15 would be granted the highest increase
ranging from 20 to 30 percent while those under SG 25 to 33 would have the lowest increase
of 8 percent. Meanwhile, those under SG 1 to 10 would get an increased pay from 17.5 percent
to 20.5 percent over four years.256 The terms and conditions of employment of all government
employees including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations shall be
governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. 257
Employees of the government, unlike private sector employees may not engage in
strikes. While the Constitution recognizes the right of government to organize, they are
prohibited from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of
mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.258 Indeed,
the government employees’ right to self-organization differs significantly from that of
employees in private sector. The latter’s right of self-organization i.e, “to form, join or assist
254
255
Id.
256
Darryl John Esguerra, Duterte Signs Law Granting Gov’t Workers Pay Hike, available at:
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1210584/breaking-duterte-signs-law-on-govt-workers-pay-hike (last accessed July
3.2020)
257
LABOR CODE, art 29
258
Bangalisan v. CA, G.R NO. 124678, JULY 31, 1997
94
labor organization for the purposes of collective bargaining” admittedly includes the right to
deal and negotiate with their respective employers in order to fix the terms and conditions of
employment and also, to engage in concerted activities for the attainment of their objectives
such as strikes, picketing, boycotts. But the right of government employees to “form, join or
assist employees’ organizations of their own choosing” under E.O 180 is not regarded as
existing and available for the “purposes of collective bargaining,” but simply “for the
furtherance and protection of their interests”. In other words, the right of government
employees to deal and negotiate with their respective employers is not quite as extensive as
that of private employees.
Excluded from negotiation by government employees are the “terms and conditions of
employment that are fixed by law,”, it being only those terms and conditions not otherwise
fixed by law that “may be subject to negotiations between the duly recognized employees’
organization and appropriate government authorities.” Declared to be “not negotiable” are
matters “that require appropriation of funds eg., increase in salary emoluments and other
allowances, car plan, special hospitalization, medical and dental services, increase in
retirement benefits, and those that “involve the exercise of management prerogatives e.g.,
appointment, promotion, assignment/detail, penalties as a result of disciplinary action, etc.
Considered negotiable are such matters as schedule of vacation, other leaves, work assignment
of pregnant women; recreational, social, athletic, and cultural activities and facilities, etc.259
Since the right to “negotiate” only covers matters which are not fixed by law and matters that
does not require appropriation of funds, making the matter of determination of “economic
benefits” provided for by law crucial with regard to ensuring the realization of the
abovementioned rights for public sector employees. Therefore, sufficient safeguards should be
incorporated in the law itself in order to protect the rights and interest of government
employees.
259
95
3.Conclusion
Indeed, the proponent concedes that there exists a substantial difference that justifies
the differences in terms of the rights and benefits granted to the employees in the private sector
and the employees in the public sector. For instance, private industries operate for profit
maximization, while the government sector operates for the purposes of delivering public
service and there are limited and fixed appropriations that should be determined on a year to
year basis, in accordance with the General Appropriation done by the Congress in exercise of
the power to purse. The proponent however argues that such differences are not sufficient in
order to justify the lack of sufficient safeguards in determining the compensation of the
employees in the public sector. It is a matter of great importance because it affects one’s right
to property, and one’s right to life. Wage indeed is a matter of great importance, through which,
man’s needs and wants are satisfied, it is the fuel that drives a person to contribute and supply
the needs of the family and the society. Wage is not a matter that should be left to the full
discretion of the state.. The economic rights of the employees in the public sector should be
greatly taken into account, especially that this class of employees are granted a limited right to
bargain and such employees are likewise subjected to the same amount of taxation and other
economic burdens.
First, since the salary schedule as created, applies for a period of four years, it fails to
take into account the economic changes, especially with regard to the inflation rates that might
occur during such a long period of time. This has been an issue that was propounded during
the committee deliberations, it was even recognized by Senator Go, when he introduced a law
that is only applicable for one year. The living wage during a certain year may not necessarily
be the same for the next years to come. Although the tranches are increasing, such increase
might not address the issues on inflation and the other factors that affect the purchasing power
of government employees. According to MERCER’s 2020 Cost of Living Survey, Philippines
ranks as the 80th in the list of the most expensive city in terms of cost of living, from its previous
rank in 2019 which was 109th.260 The government, in protecting the rights of the private sector
260
Mercer’s Cost of Living Survey, available at: https://www.mercer.com/newsroom/2020-cost-of-living.html,
96
provides that in general, Wage Orders can be issued only once in a given year. Within the 12-
month period from effectivity of the wage order, no petition for wage increase may be
entertained, except when there is a supervening condition, such as an extraordinary increase in
prices of petroleum products and basic goods and services. 261 Therefore, for the private sector,
the rate of minimum wage may change on a year to year basis, depending on the factors
previously mentioned, such as the need of workers and their families and a demand for a living
wage.
Analyzing the legislative history in Chapter 2, we were able to see that prior to the 1987
Constitution, several factors were placed to safeguard the right to a living wage for both the
employees in the public and private sector. In understanding the intention of the framers of our
constitution, we have seen that the framers delegated the right to determine wage to the
government itself, as it is exercised today, it is a collective effort between both the legislative
and the executive. In making such delegation, the framers believed that it would require more
thorough and diligent study, especially of the various factors that are to be taken account, but
in making such delegation, due regard was given to lowly government employees. They have
recognized that increasing salaries would not only mean improving the lives of various
government employees, they’ve also seen it as a tool for improving public service itself. The
framers of our Constitution, in discussing whether or not minimum wage of rank and file
government employees should be placed in the law, the framers took into account the present
economic difficulties during their time, with a great concern on the lives of government
employees who receive low salaries. According to Mr.Ople, “there must be a movement of
salaries for the lowest paid government employees by applying the minimum wage law”.262
Meaning, the framers of our very own Constitution intended that the wage of lowly government
employees, should adjust in accordance with the minimum wage law itself, and they should
not be left behind should there be adjustments made for the private sector. Since the law as it
stands today is contrary to the intent of the framers of our Constitution, it should be struck
261
Frequently Asked Questions: Procedure on Minimum Wage Fixing, available at:
https://nwpc.dole.gov.ph/faqs/ (last accessed July 3,2020)
262
Journal of the Constitutional Commission, Journal 101, October 6,1986
97
down as unconstitutional for violating the employees’ right to a living wage. A new law must
therefore be introduced to address the flaws of the system, in order to make sure that the right,
as guaranteed by our Constitution and the International Instruments, is well realized. The
distinction made in law as to who would “receive” a minimum wage is arbitrary and finds no
support in reason or in the Constitution
For there to be a valid classification, there must be (1) Substantial distinction, (2) The
classification made should be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) It must not be limited to
existing conditions only and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class. 263
The Salary Standardization Law satisfies the first requirement, indeed there are real
and substantial distinctions between employees who work for the government and the
employees who work for the private sector. For the private sector, the government merely
exercises its police power, but for the public sector, the government exercises the power to
spend. It is however argued that the classification is not germane to the purpose of the law. As
it stands today, the minimum wage law is applied in order to protect the rights of employees,
it serves as the floor wage that prohibits employers from paying any wage below it to guarantee
the realization of the right to a living wage. A standard is placed in the law, wage boards should
consider the following (a) demand for living wages; (b) wage adjustment vis-à-vis the
consumer price index; (c) the cost of living and changes or increases therein; (d) the needs of
workers and their families; (e) the need to induce industries to invest in the countryside; (f)
improvements in the standards of living; (g) prevailing wage levels; (h) fair return of the capital
invested and the capacity to pay of the employers; (i) effects on employment generation and
family income; and (j) the equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives
of economic and social development.264 It reflects a concrete embodiment of how the right to
a living wage is realized. As previously mentioned, “living wage” as defined by the framers of
our Constitution, is a wage that enable a family to live a dignified life, have its basic needs
fulfilled and have the necessary social services rendered to the family. Had this factors been
263
People v. Cayat, G.R No. L-45987, May 5,1939
264
Wage Rationalization Act, §3
98
truly taken into account by the Congress when they passed the Salary Standardization Law, the
minimum wage in the government which is Salary Grade 1, should have been at least equal or
more than that of the minimum wage that has been determined in 2018, but it did not. It is
argued that such distinction is not germane to the purpose of the law. As previously mentioned
in the previous chapters, the framers of the Constitution intended that the right to a living wage
should be enjoyed by all employees. There exist no rhyme or reason why we should deprive
workers who dedicate their lives in pursuit of public service of this Constitutionally guaranteed
right. For determining the reasonableness of classification, the most demanding test would be
the strict scrutiny test, which requires the government to show that the challenged classification
serves a compelling state interest and that classification is necessary to serve that interest. This
is a test used when the right affected is considered by law to be fundamental. Should the law
distinguish between public sector and private sector employees with regard to who should
receive minimum wage? Using the abovementioned test, inequality exists, not because
government employees are excluded from minimum wage laws, but because the government
does not provide a criteria on how wages would be adjusted, which is essential especially when
we are talking about wage. Minimum wage, indeed may not be a specific amount, for the
private sector employees themselves, it differs region per region, but for everyone including
government sector employees to enjoy having an “adequate and equitable wage” , the factors
which are taken into account for private sector employees should be well embedded in the law
itself.
99
CHAPTER 05: RECOMMENDATION
Public service, entails an important and sacred obligation, but it should not entail a
sacrifice too great that compromises the lives of government employees and their families
especially with regard to their financial needs. In determining wage for the private sector, the
RTWPB itself considers the needs of the workers and their family which includes the demand
for living wage, it also takes into account wage adjustments vis-à-vis consumer price index,
const of living and changes therein. The government should likewise take into account such
factors pursuant to the right to living wage which is equally granted to all employees whether
in the private sector or not. It was previously established that the right to work and the right to
earn a living constitutes as a protected property under the Bill of rights, it is a right that’s
guaranteed to each worker, whether they belong in the private sector or not. It is likewise
interrelated to the right to life, because the right to life itself would be compromised should
one receive a wage, below what’s deemed to be adequate to provide a reasonable standard of
living.
With all things considered, it is therefore recommended that the law should be amended
in order to curtail government’s abuse of discretion in determining wage. In order for each and
every person to realize the Constitutional right to a living wage, sufficient safeguards should
be placed in the law especially for the class of rank and file employees who receive an amount
less than the minimum wage. An amendment to the Salary Standardization Law must be
introduced in order to cover government employees within the purview of receiving minimum
wage. Providing minimum wage to “all” employees, through time and through the
development of human rights became part of customary international law. Since it has become
part of customary international law, it should be deemed part of the law of the land, following
Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution. It is feasible to cover government
employees under the Minimum Wage Law, during the 1950s, such law applied even to the
government itself. In crafting the Salary Standardization Law, it can be said that the congress
was very much willing to increase the salaries but was hindered by its effects on the National
Budget.This should not however be the case, Mr.Quesada during the deliberations of the
100
Constitution propounded that “ if the government would always have deficit spending, they
would prefer that it be on the salaries of government employees and officials in order to give
them an incentive to serve better”. In crafting the Constitution, several members of the
Constitutional commission recognized that the government officials should be motivated by
monetary considerations but by the desire to serve. There was however a humanitarian
approach that although public service entails sacrifice, public servants likewise have their own
material needs. Reviewing public sector compensation of other states, we have seen that
poverty issues didn’t serve as an excuse on the part of government to exercise laxity in
guaranteeing one’s right to a living wage. India has the most complex minimum wage law in
the world, it is not even mandatory for employers to comply, but the Indian government didn’t
excuse itself from providing adequate compensation to its employees. In fact, in India,
government employees earn more than private sector employees, the reason for it is becase
the government seeks to get competitive employees, who would serve well in improving
government services in general. In Myanmar, for various years, public sector employees have
been earning less than the amount of the nationally determined minimum wage, but after
studying the need for improving civil service compensation with the Asian Development
Bank, issues on public sector compensation was fixed, and was even regarded as the “most
promising government compensation structure.” The current trend in ILO member states and
even in poverty driven states I to make public sector wage either equal or higher than the
nationally determined minimum wage. Reviewing the laws in the United States, which served
as the guide in crafting our own labor laws and even our Constitution, it has been observed that
in the United States, government employees are likewise covered by the minimum wage laws
determined by the congress.
When all is said and done, this paper years for one thing : For the Philippine
government to recognize a patent violation of human rights that existed for decades and for the
government to serve substantial justice to this particular set of employees who have been
ostracized from the developments enjoyed by employees throughout the years. Most
government employees have been suffering from an economic hemorrhage and have found
themselves helpless in fighting or negotiating for the improvement of their rights. It is perhaps
101
about time to put a stop to this kind of violation, and provide a framework that guarantees each
and every person the realization of their Constitutionally guaranteed right.
102
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Raising The Standards A Critique of The Salary Standardization Law PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raising The Standards A Critique of The Salary Standardization Law PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Source of Funding ........................................................................................................... 43

CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION

In the matter of employment, whether it be in the public or private sector, it cannot be

Being a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Philippines

The Philippines puts primacy to protection of labor as a constitutionally protected right.

Equal Protection Clause

The case of Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Secretary of Education

Considerations made by the framers of the Constitution

“AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE PERIOD, THE GOVERNMENT SHALL

Importance of a Living Wage

In discussing the definition of a “family living wage." The Constitutional Commission

2. Statement of the Problem

Although the proponent concedes that there should be a distinction between

3. Objectives of the Study

This Study aims:

Third is to amend the Salary Standardization Law applicable to government employees

4. Significance of the Study

The government is currently an employer of approximately 1.4 million civilian

The equal protection clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the equality of a

1. Employer - includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an

Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the

6. Scope and Limitation

CHAPTER 02: UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORY OF THE

1.The Minimum Wage Law of 1951

Jurisprudence in relation to the Minimum Wage Law, highlighted the effects of

2.Understanding the Intention of the Framers of Our Constitution

During the deliberations, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 expressed

Joint Resolution No. 1 (SSL 2)

Joint Resolution No. 4 (SSL 3)

Executive Order No. 201 (SSL4)

4.The Current Framework (SSL 5)

Salary Standardization Law 2019

To whom does the salary law apply?

5.Efforts of the Government to Uplift the Lives of Government Employees through

6.Judicial Recognition of the Inequitable Treatment Experienced by Government

Oania Belarmino, was a classroom teacher of the Department of Education,

With regard to poverty and the inequality experienced by government employees,

As previously mentioned in Chapter 1, poverty constitutes as a denial of human rights,

Central Bank (now BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas) Employees Association, Inc., v.

It is material to last paragraph in this decision, as it provides enlightenment of the courts

YEAR MINIMUM BASIC WAGE RATES LOWEST BASIC MONTHLY

1997 Php 180 x 22= Php 3,960 Php 4,400120

1999 Php 223.50 x 22 = Php 4,917 Php 4,400

2012 Php 426 x 22 = Php 9,372 Php 9,000

2013 Php 436 x 22 = Php 9,592 Php 9,000

CHAPTER 03: MINIMUM WAGES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR

The General Concept of Minimum Wage and its importance

2.An overview on how states determine public sector wage

How are public sector wages determined?

(a) Collective bargaining

(b) State decides with or without consultation

The Approach to Public Sector Wage in the United States

The Approach to Public Sector Wage of Economically Challenged Countries

Salaries of Civil Servants in Myanmar is likewise determined through a legislative

3.Philippine Law Provisions vs the Minimum Wage Convention

Current Trend of the International Labour Organization Member States

The Role of Customary International Law

prove effectiveness of a general acceptance of a rule, rather than a manifestation of single

CHAPTER 04: LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

As previously discussed in Chapter 3, during the crafting of the Salary Standardization

2.Avenue for Bargaining

CHAPTER 05: RECOMMENDATION