Labor Laws: Socialism and Communism

Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch! (Workers of the world unite!) — Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels, The Communist Manifesto

The labor rights – such as minimum wage pay, working hours, leave benefits, rest periods, security of
tenure and collective bargaining – that have become standard of today were enforced when labor unions
spread through the maxes, united by Karl Marx’s call.

Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro inspired the communist and
socialist insurgencies that protest against an era of imperialism and the capitalist industrial revolution. In
the 19th century, workers, including women and children, worked for endless hours in unsafe plants or
farms in hand-to-mouth existence. Industries competed for capital with maximum returns and minimum
costs to the employer.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote about this conflict of the upper bourgeoisie and lower
proletariat social classes rooted in capitalist economics. In a capitalist economy, private ownership is
unregulated, which encourages the hoarding and overproduction of goods.

Marx explained that in earlier times, everyone is responsible for producing just what his family needs, but
as societies formed, people began to specialize in their skills, gaining control of particular trades and
ownership. A person’s job or skill determined the way one lives, creating the formation of social classes,
along with its discriminations, entitlements and opportunities for exploitation.

This system has been perpetuated through the “superstructures” of established politics, law, art, literature
and religion. The masses would need to align into groups and take arms to resist the pervasive powers of
these superstructures that maintain the status quo.

An aggressive, radical and even violent anti-establishment gathering is needed to shake up the
foundations of society and to alter the means and cycle of production. The ruling class will be displaced
to open the space for the masses. Revolutions are inevitable in this dialectical process of “thesis” and
“antithesis” of social classes leading to a “synthesis” of a classless society.

Mao Tse Tung, in his Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan explained: A
revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery. It cannot
be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A
revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

The perfect society is a return to social ownership (Socialism) through nationalization of economic
resources (land, raw materials, factories, industries). Lenin, in The State and Revolution, wrote that
Socialism, which is the conversion of private to public property, is just the first phase of Communism. In
a commun, common ownership would obliterate entitlements and difference of classes and there would be
no need for the State or for laws as the people imbibe the rule that “from each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs.”

Like Marx, Lenin believed that the proletariat revolution must spread to all nations transcending
boundaries and nationalities, to finally overthrow the allied colonizers and their capitalist economies. This
dream was realized with the formation of the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Red Revolution

Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law. — Oliver Goldsmith, The Traveller

For Marx, man must reclaim his greatest virtues from the gods and idols of society. It is the working man
who must be dignified, exalted and glorified, and not the man in the palaces or in the heavens. Religion is
the “opium of the people” that prevents him from confronting his miseries in exchange for an imaginary
after-life that he cannot even be sure of.

The spiraling excesses of Communist revolutions, through class liquidation, confiscation of property and
farmlands, and social re-engineering, produced the greatest recorded massacres, death camps, genocides,
and famines, known as the RED HOLOCAUST. A combined death toll between 85 and 100 million
occurred in the former Soviet Union under Stalin, in China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer
Rouge. It is the endorsement of violence and disregard for life and property that made communism
unappealing to otherwise Socialist sympathizers. Alexis de Tocqueville warned against the tendency of
socialism to be contemptuous of the individual, to make him a cog in the overbearing machinery of the
State.

Socialists argue that Capitalism has inherent politico-economic flaws, such as materialism, exploitation of
the workers, private individualism, monopolies, licentious abuse of freedoms and rights, increasing
inequalities in wealth, perpetuation to power, Fascism, religious propaganda, and lost sense of
communalism and nationalism. Capitalism inevitably widens the gap between rich and poor and
eliminates any middle class.

Until the late 20th century, a power struggle ensued between the allies of Capitalist Britain and the United
States (including its ally, the Philippines) and Communist Russia and China, in a COLD WAR threat of
nuclear annihilation. World views have been divided into the Socialist “Left”, the free-market “Right”,
and the “Middle” welfare-state Capitalists.

Since the American period, the Philippine Commonwealth installed laws against the violent overthrow of
government, with the Communists in mind. Labor laws were passed, amid social unrest, such as the
Employer’s Liability Act in 1908, the Industrial Peace Act in 1953, and the Labor Code of the Philippines
by President Marcos in 1974. The aim of social legislation is “social Justice”, define in the case of
Calalang vs William (GR No. 47800, 2 December 1940) as “neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by
the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.”

China, under Deng Xiaoping, reformed its economic policies to open its economy and become a rival
superpower to the US, by copying the Capitalist recipe and opening itself to free trade. Many elements of
the left have advocated human rights and legitimate political parties, redefining themselves into
Democrats, Liberals, or simply, Socialists. Even as Communism continues to flout its defense of the
rights of the masses, the worst human rights violations are still happening in Communist regimes like
North Korea.

The failure of Marxism in solving tyranny and poverty was largely due to its theory that a state must be
governed only by a single unified party that will do the central planning of economic activities. A single
party is supposedly the proof of a classless society but these breed corruption, absolute dictatorship, and
perpetuation of dynasties such as the Castros in Cuba and the Kims in North Korea. The abolition of
private ownership also kills competitive entrepreneurial drive.

The balanced economic formula as suggested, is the Welfare-State Capitalism. It favors the provision of
basic services and regulation of industries but not complete control/prohibition, or on the other hand,
laissez-faire deregulation.
Worker-Control Capitalism is also a proposed alternative, where workers, not the State, will partly own
the means of production by obtaining significant shares.

The international community has also learned its lessons from the Cold War as there are now 160 parties
to the UN’s International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights committed to labor rights
and Socialist reforms. The UN has a special agency, the International Labor Organization, which
promotes better labor standards.

The Philippine Constitution, unlike the US Constitution, also devotes articles on social justice, labor
rights, agrarian reform, people’s organization, sectoral representation, nationalist protection, patriotism,
social welfare, and regulation of trade. Evidently, it endorses socialist principles from the leftist delegates
of the 1987 Constitutional Commission. Many party-list groups for migrants, farmers, fisher-folks,
women and employees since then have been able to secure seats in Congress.

The Anti-establishment spirit, ushered by Socialism, spawned the deconstructive critique of patriarchal
culture, Western systems and ideology, and industrialization.

RA. 1199 which is “AN ACT TO GOVERN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LANDHOLDERS
AND TENANTS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS (LEASEHOLDS AND SHARE TENANCY)”

It is the desire to improve the condition of the peasant class that must have impelled the Legislature to
adopt the provisions as a whole of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, and particularly Section 14 of said act.

1. Share tenancy: Share tenancy exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for
agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or
both contributing any one or several of the items of production, the tenant cultivating the land
personally with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, and
the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their
respective contributions.

2. Leasehold tenancy: Leasehold tenancy exists when a person who, either personally or with the
aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, undertakes to cultivate a
piece of agricultural land susceptible of cultivation by a single person together with members of
his immediate farm household, belonging to or legally possessed by, another in consideration of a
price certain or ascertainable to be paid by the person cultivating the land either in percentage of
the production or in a fixed amount in money, or in both.

Case: MATEO DE RAMAS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS and
GERONIMO B. RAMOS, respondents.

Facts: The petitioner, Mateo de Ramas, is the landowner of  2-l/2 hectare land at Muzon, Naic, Cavite
where the respondent, Geroniomo B. Ramos, is the tenant. There was a verbal agreement between them
under a share tenancy on a 70-30 sharing basis. Ramos petitioned to change the tenancy contract from
share-basis to leasehold basis in accordance with Sec. 14 of RA 1199. Section 14 allows the tenants to
change system. Ramos filed a petition before the Court of Agrarian Relations praying that he be allowed
to change their tenancy contract. Ramas moved to susepend the proceedings on the ground that the
constitutionality of RA No. 1199 has been raised in one case before the Supreme Court. The Court of
Agrarian Reforms denied the petition of Ramas. Ramas then questioned the action of the said court.
Issue: W/N RA No. 1199 is unconstitutional as it violates the contractual right of the petitioner

Held: No, it is constitutional and valid. “The constitutional prohibition against state laws impairing the
obligation of contracts does not restrict the power of the state to protect the public health, the Public
morals, or the public safety. One or more of these factors may be involved in the execution of such
contracts.” It is noted that the constitution promotes the protection of the public health, the public morals,
and the public safety. The right granted to the tenant to change the contract from share tenancy to that of
leasehold tenancy cannot be considered unreasonable or oppressive, because by the landlord's giving up
of 5% of the harvest (the change from share to leasehold tenancy reduces the landlord's... share from 30%
to 25%) the tenant becomes more responsible, more competent, and financially prepared to comply with
his obligations under the lease, to the ultimate benefit of the landlord, with the consequent improvement
of a lot of a big segment of the population and thereby... giving full meaning to the social justice directive
contained in the Constitution. This is in relation to the goal of the constitution which is to promote social
justice and of the well-being and economic security of all the people as its primary aim. RA 1199 is
considered constitutional as it helps the lowly tenants to save more so that they can invest in their farming
equipments as their own without paying a lot to the landowners. Thus, a huge step in attaining social
justice.

Communism in the Philippines emerged in the first half of the 20th century during the American
Colonial Era of the Philippines. Communist movements originated in labor unions and peasant groups.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE LAVA, ET AL. (G.R. No. L-4974, May 16, 1969)

FACTS: As of the year 1950 when elements of the police and armed forces of the Government arrested
the defendants in five cases there was already a nationwide organization of the Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP), and that said party had a well-organized plan to overthrow the Philippine Government
by armed struggle and to establish in the Philippines a communist form of government similar to that of
Soviet Russia and Red China. The Communist Party of the Philippines had as its military arm the
organization known as the “Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan” (HMB), otherwise or formerly known as
the Hukbalahaps (Huks). It is established that the rebellious activities of the HMB, and the commission of
common crimes in different parts of the country by the HMB, were directed by the Communist Party of
the Philippines through its Politburo (PB) and/or Secretariat (SEC). The Politburo and/ or the Secretariat
gave orders to the field through its general headquarters (GHQ) and its regional commands (RECOS), and
reports to the Politburo and/or Secretariat were made regarding the activities of the HMB, giving accounts
of the sorties or ambushes and attacks against elements of the police, the Philippine Constabulary and the
army, and of killings, lootings and destruction of property. It is also established that the plan of the
Communist Party was not only to overthrow the Philippine Government but also to kill officials of the
Government and private individuals who refused to cooperate with the rebels, and orders to this effect
were transmitted to the HMB.

The Communist Party of the Philippines has a flag, colored red, with the symbols of the hammer and the
sickle, and a newspaper organ called “TITIS.” In the general plan to indoctrinate the masses into
communistic ideas and principles, communist schools — some of them called “Stalin University” — were
set up in a number of places in the mountain fastnesses, where trained instructors gave lectures and taught
lessons in the principles of Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, Joseph Stalin and Nicolai Lenin. As has been
stated, the CPP has an armed force, which is the HMB. The predecessor of the HMB was the Hukbalahap,
an organization created by the party during the Japanese occupation to resist the Japanese forces. Upon
liberation of the Philippines, the members of the Hukbalahap continued their activities, the organization
was renamed HMB, and its members were indoctrinated in communistic principles. The members of the
HMB are known as “Huks.”
 COMMUNIST ADVOCACY NOT A CONSPIRACY TO REBELLION THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. (G.R. No. L-6025, May 30, 1964)

FACTS: That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and continuously
thereafter, until the present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and the place which they had chosen as
the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring, confederating and cooperating with each other, as well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants
charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 19071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila (decided May 11, 1951) and also with others whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown, the
said accused and their other co-conspirators, being then high ranking officers and/or members of, or
otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), which is now actively engaged in an
armed rebellion against the Government of the Philippines thru act theretofore committed and planned to be
further committed in Manila and other places in the Philippines, and of which party the "Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks), unlawfully and
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or
command the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise publicly and
take arms against the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for
the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws
thereof as in fact the said "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or "Hukbalahaps" have risen publicly and taken
arms to attain the said purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against
police, constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit
the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and there committed
acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to
create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid
purpose, as. follows, to wit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on government forces or civilians by Huks on
May 6, 1946, August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947, June, 1946, April 28, 1949, August
25, 1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950, March 28, 1950 and March 29, 1950.)

ISSUE: W/N Does his or anyone’s membership in the Communist Party per se render Hernandez or any
Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of the Revised
Penal Code? The pertinent provision reads: ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or
insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished,
respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed 5,000
pesos, and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

RULINGS:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6025) defendants-appellants Amado V. Hernandez, Juan
J. Cruz, Amado Racanday and Genaro de la Cruz are absolved from the charges contained in the information,
with their proportionate share of the costs de oficio. The defendants-appellants Julian Lumanog and Fermin
Rodillas in Criminal Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6025) and the defendants-appellants Bayani Espiritu and
Teopista Valerio in Criminal Case No. 15479 (G.R. No. L-6026) are hereby found guilty of the crime of
conspiracy to commit rebellion, as defined and punished in Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and each
and everyone of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years, four months and twenty-
one days of prision correccional, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay their proportional share of the costs. So ordered.

Prepared by:
CAMALON, KEREN KEZIA ALDEGUER,
DONAN, KAREN JOY VILLEGAS
LAGAHIT, JARED MARK GUIZA
RODRIGAZO, HAZEL JOY ARTIFICE