Constitutional Rights and Mandates

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES, ARTICLE II Section 9.

The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity
and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through polices that
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living
and an improved quality of life for all.

Section 18.

The state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Constitutional Rights and Mandates
BILL OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE III
Section 8.

The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law, shall not be abridged.

Section 11.

Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to
any person by reason of poverty.

Section 16.

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies.
Constitutional Rights and Mandates

Article III, Section 1.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Constitutional Rights and Mandates
Art. XIII, Section 3
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,

collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions
of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy
and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
Constitutional Rights and Mandates
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes
in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of
production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to
investments, and to expansion and growth.
Constitutional Rights and Mandates

Art. XIII, Section 14.

The State shall protect working women by

providing safe and healthful working
conditions, taking into account their maternal
functions, and such facilities and opportunities
that will enhance their welfare and enable
them to realize their full potential in the service
of the nation.
Concept of Social Justice

• Social justice is 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.
Concept of Social Justice
• Social justice means the promotion of the welfare
of all the people, the adoption by the Government
of measures calculated to ensure economic
stability of all the component elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic
and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally,
through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the
exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principle of
salus populi est supremo lex. Calalang vs.
Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR
The Constitution is the bedrock of the most fundamental rights of labor.

These rights guaranteed by the Constitution may be classified into two,

namely:

1. individual rights of workers

2. collective rights of labor in general.

The individual rights of workers are found Article III, Bill of Rights,
which is described as “the charter of individual liberties.”

The collective rights of labor in general are enshrined in the Protection to

Labor Clause, Art XIII, Sec 3.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS

1. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

Sec. 1 - “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.” (Art III, Cont.)

This is the due process/equal protection clause. An early application of the due
process clause interpreted the right to property to include a worker’s right to his labor and to
the fruits of his industry. Hence, a worker cannot be deprived of his job or his wages without
due process of law. (Philippine Moving Pictures Workers Association vs.

Premiere Productions, 92 Phil. 843). In a more recent case the Supreme Court
declared that “It is a principle well recognized in this jurisdiction, that one’s employment,
profession, trade or calling is a property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an
actionable wrong.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS

2. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Sec 4 — No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or

of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances. (Art III, Const.)

The freedom of expression clause quoted above is derived from the Philippine Bill
of 1902 which replicated verbatim the corresponding provision in the U.S. Constitution.

American jurisprudence interpreting this provisions has applied it to cover the labor
practice of picketing. It has been held that “what is protected is the element of communication,
not the act patrolling or marching which may be subject to reasonable regulation.”
(International Brotherhood of Teamsters vs. Hanke, 1950).

The freedom of expression is available to individual workers subject to the legal

limitation involved, not only in times of dispute, but also during times of industrial peace to air
their valid grievances. (Kap. Manggagawa ng Camara Shoes vs. Camara Shoes, 111 SCRA
478).
 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR
3. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

The pertinent text in the Bill of Rights provides:

Sec. 8 — The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. (Art. III, Const.)

The freedom of association clause, which now embraces employees in the public sector, carries a
special significance to the rights of the individual worker. The Supreme Court has described this freedom as
“This implies not only the right to join a labor union, as well as the privilege of not joining one, of selecting
which union to join, and of disaffiliating from a union. (Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA
54).
 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR
4. NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

The Bill of rights provides a guarantee of non-impairment as follows:

Sec. 10 - No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. From the standpoint of a
workers right, this guarantee could be described more relevantly as the right to the sanctity of employment
contracts.

The contracts protected by the non-impairment clause are confined to those respecting property or
property rights, such as employment contracts. The obligation of such contracts refers to the duty of
performing the contracts according to their terms and intent.
THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROMEO QUITCO and
RICARDO DIONELE, SR., respondents.

PARAS, J.:
• This is a petition for review on certiorari of the April 8, 1985 Resolution of the
Ministry of Labor and Employment affirming the July 16, 1982 Decision of the Labor
Arbiter, which ruled in favor of granting separation pay to private respondents.
• On June 27, 1960, herein petitioner Rosalina Perez Abella leased a farm land in
Monteverde, Negros Occidental, known as Hacienda Danao-Ramona, for a period of
ten (10) years, renewable, at her option, for another ten (10) years (Rollo, pp. 16-
20).
• On August 13, 1970, she opted to extend the lease contract for another ten (10)
years (Ibid, pp. 26-27).
• During the existence of the lease, she employed the herein private respondents.
Private respondent Ricardo Dionele, Sr. has been a regular farm worker since 1949
and he was promoted to Cabo in 1963. On the other hand, private respondent
Romeo Quitco started as a regular employee in 1968 and was promoted to Cabo in
November of the same year.
• Upon the expiration of her leasehold rights, petitioner dismissed private
respondents and turned over the hacienda to the owners thereof on October 5,
1981, who continued the management, cultivation and operation of the farm (Rollo,
pp. 33; 89).
• On November 20, 1981, private respondents filed a
complaint against the petitioner at the Ministry of Labor
and Employment, Bacolod City District Office, for
overtime pay, illegal dismissal and reinstatement with
backwages. After the parties had presented their
respective evidence, Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Lucas, Jr., in
a Decision dated July 16, 1982 (Ibid, pp. 29-31), ruled that
the dismissal is warranted by the cessation of business,
but granted the private respondents separation pay.
Pertinent portion of the dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:
• In the instant case, the respondent closed its business
operation not by reason of business reverses or losses.
Accordingly, the award of termination pay in
complainants' favor is warranted.

• WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby ordered to pay the

complainants separation pay at the rate of half-month
salary for every year of service, a fraction of six (6)
months being considered one (1) year. (Rollo pp. 29-30)
• On appeal on August 11, 1982, the National Labor Relations
Commission, in a Resolution dated April 8, 1985 (Ibid, pp. 3940),
affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
• On May 22, 1985, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid,
pp. 41-45), but the same was denied in a Resolution dated June 10,
1985 (Ibid, p. 46). Hence, the present petition (Ibid, pp. 3-8).
• The First Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated September 16,
1985, resolved to require the respondents to comment (Ibid, p. 58).
In compliance therewith, private respondents filed their Comment
on October 23, 1985 (Ibid, pp. 53-55); and the Solicitor General on
December 17, 1985 (Ibid, pp. 71-73-B).
• On February 19, 1986, petitioner filed her Consolidated Reply to the
Comments of private and public respondents (Ibid, pp. 80-81).
• The First Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated March 31,
1986, resolved to give due course to the petition; and to require the
parties to submit simultaneous memoranda (Ibid., p. 83). In
compliance therewith, the Solicitor General filed his Memorandum
on June 18, 1986 (Ibid, pp. 89-94); and petitioner on July 23, 1986
(Ibid, pp. 96-194).
• The petition is devoid of merit.
• The sole issue in this case is —
• WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY.
• Petitioner claims that since her lease agreement had already expired, she is not
liable for payment of separation pay. Neither could she reinstate the complainants
in the farm as this is a complete cessation or closure of a business operation, a just
cause for employment termination under Article 272 of the Labor Code.
• On the other hand, the legal basis of the Labor Arbiter in granting separation pay to
the private respondents is Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, amending the Labor Code,
Section 15 of which, specifically provides:
• Sec 15 Articles 285 and 284 of the Labor Code are hereby amended to read as
follows:
• xxx xxx xxx
• Art. 284. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The employer
may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of
labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing
or cessation of operation of the establisment or undertaking unless the closing is
for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this title, by serving a written
notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1)
month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the
installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby
shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay
or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In
case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closure or cessation of
operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or
financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or
at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service whichever is higher. A
fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.1avvphi1
• There is no question that Article 284 of the Labor Code as
amended by BP 130 is the law applicable in this case.
• Article 272 of the same Code invoked by the petitioner
pertains to the just causes of termination. The Labor
Arbiter does not argue the justification of the termination
of employment but applied Article 284 as amended,
which provides for the rights of the employees under the
circumstances of termination.
• Petitioner then contends that the aforequoted provision
violates the constitutional guarantee against impairment
of obligations and contracts, because when she leased
Hacienda Danao-Ramona on June 27, 1960, neither she
nor the lessor contemplated the creation of the obligation
to pay separation pay to workers at the end of the lease.
• Such contention is untenable.
• This issue has been laid to rest in the case of Anucension v. National
Labor Union (80 SCRA 368-369 [1977]) where the Supreme Court
ruled:
• It should not be overlooked, however, that the prohibition to impair
the obligation of contracts is not absolute and unqualified. The
prohibition is general, affording a broad outline and requiring
construction to fill in the details. The prohibition is not to read with
literal exactness like a mathematical formula for it prohibits
unreasonable impairment only. In spite of the constitutional
prohibition the State continues to possess authority to safeguard the
vital interests of its people. Legislation appropriate to safeguard said
interest may modify or abrogate contracts already in effect. For not
only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix the
obligations as between the parties but the reservation of essential
attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a
postulate of the legal order. All contracts made with reference to any
matter that is subject to regulation under the police power must be
understood as made in reference to the possible exercise of that
power. Otherwise, important and valuable reforms may be
precluded by the simple device of entering into contracts for the
purpose of doing that which otherwise maybe prohibited. ...
• In order to determine whether legislation
unconstitutionally impairs contract of obligations, no
unchanging yardstick, applicable at all times and under all
circumstances, by which the validity of each statute may
be measured or determined, has been fashioned, but
every case must be determined upon its own
circumstances. Legislation impairing the obligation of
contracts can be sustained when it is enacted for the
promotion of the general good of the people, and when
the means adopted must be legitimate, i.e. within the
scope of the reserved power of the state construed in
harmony with the constitutional limitation of that power.
(Citing Basa vs. Federacion Obrera de la Industria
Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas [FOITAF] [L-
27113], November 19, 1974; 61 SCRA 93,102-113]).
• The purpose of Article 284 as amended is obvious-the protection of
the workers whose employment is terminated because of the
closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. Without said
law, employees like private respondents in the case at bar will lose
the benefits to which they are entitled — for the thirty three years of
service in the case of Dionele and fourteen years in the case of
Quitco. Although they were absorbed by the new management of
the hacienda, in the absence of any showing that the latter has
assumed the responsibilities of the former employer, they will be
considered as new employees and the years of service behind them
would amount to nothing.
• Moreover, to come under the constitutional prohibition, the law
must effect a change in the rights of the parties with reference to
each other and not with reference to non-parties.
• As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, Article 284 as
amended refers to employment benefits to farm hands who were
not parties to petitioner's lease contract with the owner of Hacienda
Danao-Ramona. That contract cannot have the effect of annulling
subsequent legislation designed to protect the interest of the
working class.
• In any event, it is well-settled that in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its
implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the
primordial and paramount consideration. (Volshel Labor Union v.
Bureau of Labor Relations, 137 SCRA 43 [1985]). It is the kind of
interpretation which gives meaning and substance to the liberal and
compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of the
New Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation
and interpretation of the provisions of this Code including its
implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of
labor." The policy is to extend the applicability of the decree to a
greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under
the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State
to give maximum aid and protection to labor. (Sarmiento v.
Employees Compensation Commission, 144 SCRA 422 [1986] citing
Cristobal v. Employees Compensation Commission, 103 SCRA 329;
Acosta v. Employees Compensation Commission, 109 SCRA 209).
• PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED
and the July 16, 1982 Decision of the Labor Arbiter and the April 8,
1985 Resolution of the Ministry of Labor and Employment are
hereby AFFIRMED.
• SO ORDERED.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR
5. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES

This individual right is guaranteed in this Bill of Rights provision:

Sec. 11 — Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies, and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied in any person by reason of poverty. (Art. III, Const.)

6. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

The text establishing this right provides:

Sec. 16 — All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. (Art. III, Const.)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR

7. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

This right is embodied in the following provision:

Sec. 16 — No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof party shall have been duly convicted. (Art. Const.)

This prohibition covers the following practices:

1. Slavery, or the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.

2. Involuntary servitude generally, or a condition of enforced compulsory service of

one to another.

By extension, this does not justify an employee from choosing to do certain tasks, and
refusing to do others entailed in his job. This is clearly beyond the pale of this
prohibition.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR
COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF LABOR

1. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION The Protection to Labor clause, Art. XIII Sec. 3, ensures
this right of labor in these words: ‘It (the State) shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization . . .”

The protection refers to “all workers” which includes government employees in the civil service
and in government-owned and controlled corporations without original charters.

This right is however subject to two limitations,

a) High-level employees whose functions are normally considered as policy-making or managerial

or whose duties are of a highly confidential nature shall not be eligible to join the organization of rank-and-file
government employees (Sec. 3, Ex. O. No. 180); and

b) The right does not apply to members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including police
officers, policemen, firemen and jail guards. (Sec. 4, Id.).

Certain exclusions are also provided among employees in the private sector, such as managerial
employees, members of cooperatives, etc.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR
2. RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING & NEGOTIATION

This right, which is also given by the Protection to Labor clause, is corollary
to the right to self-organization. It infers the existence of a labor organization, and
indicates its role in fostering industrial peace. Without this companion right, a labor
union will have no voice or power to represent the workers’ interests before their
employer, and it would be inutile.

3. RIGHT TO PEACEFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES

This is another corollary to the right to self-organization as it affords to labor

unions the potential for action to enforce their demands. The right is established in
the protection to labor clause which provides in pertinent part: It (the State) shall
guarantee the rights of all workers to peaceful concerted activities, including the right
to strike in accordance with law. . .” (Art XIII, Sec. 3).

The Constitution itself, in guaranteeing this right, qualifies it with the condition
that concerted activities should be “peaceful,” that the right to strike be “in
accordance with law.”
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR
4. RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE.

Under previous laws, an employer could terminate the services of an

employee, with or without just cause by simply giving him one month notice or
compensation (mesada) in lieu thereof. This placed the employee at the mercy of
the employer on whom he depended for his and his family’s livelihood.

This tenuous relationship has been drastically changed and rectified by the
Labor Code in view of the right to security to tenure guaranteed by the Constitution
(Art. XIII, Sec. 3). Tenure in employment until the same is terminated under
conditions required by law.

5. RIGHT TO HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK

This collective right ensures that working conditions take into account the
health, safety and welfare of workers. The Code also empowers the Secretary of
Labor to order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of an establishment
when non-compliance with the law poses grave and imminent danger to the health
and safety of workers in the workplace (Art, 128-c).
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR

6. RIGHT TO A LIVING WAGE

The right to a living wage is a new right established in the present Constitution (Art. XIII, Sec. 3). The
term refers not merely to the worker, but to his family as well, and the content is to secure the means whereby
a worker can secure the health , decency, well-being and in an improved quality of life for his family. This
right is therefore imbued with social justice implications.

A living wage is not the same as a minimum wage. For a minimum wage is a floor wage, below which
remuneration cannot fall. Thus, it is basically a quantitative concept, which, despite all the factors considered,
may still be equated with the term “subsistence wage.” This has been accurately described in Black’s Law
Dictionary as “the least wage on which an ordinary individual can be self-sustaining, and obtain the ordinary
requirements of life, “ (Id. Rev. 4th Ed., citing Association Industries of Oklahoma vs. Industrial Welfare
Commission, 185 Ok. 177).
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LABOR

7. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY & DECISION MAKING

The Protection to Labor clause also contains a new provision which states in pertinent part: “. . . They
(all workers) shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits
as may be provided by law . . .” (Art. XIII, Sec. 3).

As worded, this provision does not establish a right; it merely allows such a right if the
legislature enacts the corresponding law. This status has been firmed up as right upon the effectivity
of Rep. Act. No. 6715 on March 21, 1989. Section 22 of this amendatory law provides on this point:

The right does not apply to all types of policy and decision-making by management, but only to those
that directly affect the rights, benefits and welfare of workers.