PHILIPPINE NATIONAL

POLICE HANDBOOK PNPM-

DO-DS-3-2-13 CHAPTER 4,
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
LESSON 1. RULE 24. RULES ON LABOR
DISPUTE
1. General policy and Guidelines.
a. The involvement of PNP personnel
during strikes, lockouts and labor disputes in
general shall be limited to the maintenance of
peace and order, enforcement of laws, and
implementation of legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities.
 b. The PNP shall only render assistance to labor
disputes upon written request addressed to the
Regional/Director concerned. In case of actual violence,
the police can respond without the written request.

c . Insofar as practicable, no PNP personnel shall

be allowed to render police assistance in connection with
a strike or lockout if there is a question or complaint as
regards his relationship by affinity or consanguinity to
any official/leader of the parties in the controversy or if
he has financial or pecuniary interest therein.
 d. PNP personnel detailed as peace-keeping force in
strike or lockout areas shall be in prescribed uniform at
all times.

e. They shall exercise maximum tolerance and

when called by the situation or when all other peaceful
and non-violent means have been exhausted, police
officers may employ such means as may be necessary
and reasonable to prevent or repel an aggression.
 f. The matter of determining whether a strike,
picket or lockout is legal or not should be left to
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and its
appropriate agencies. PNP personnel should not interfere
in a strike, picket or lockout, except as herein provided.

g. No personal escort shall be provided to any of

the parties to the controversy unless upon written request
from DOLE. Whenever escorts are to be provided, the
other party shall be in prescribed uniform at all times.
 h. During the T of strike/lockout, the police
personnel concerned are prohibited from socializing
with any of the parties involved in the controversy.

i. Llaison shall be established and maintained with

the representatives of DOLE, management and the union
in the strike/ lockout area for the purpose of maintaining
peace and order, as well to maintain a continuing
peaceful dialogue between the parties to the
strike/lockout.
 j. The peace-keeping detail shall not be stationed in
the picket line (or confrontation line) but should be
stationed in such manner that their presence may deter
the commission of criminal acts or any untoward
incident from either side. The members of the
peacekeeping detail shall stay outside a 50-meter radius
from the picket line. In cases where in the 50-meter
radius includes a public thoroughfare, they may station
themselves in such public thoroughfare for the purpose
of ensuring the free flow of traffic.
 2. Applicable legal Parameters
The pertinent provision of the Public Assembly Act of
1985 ( Batas Pambansa Bilang 880) the Labor Code if
the Philippine, as amended and other applicable laws,
shall be observed during rallies, stikes, demonstrations
or other public assemblies. Law enforcement agents
shall, at all times.

a. Exercise maximum tolerance

b. In case of unlawful aggression, only reasonable
force may be employed to prevent or repel it.
 c. The employment of tear gas and water cannons
shall be made under the control and supervision of the
ground commander.

d. No arrest of any leader, organizer, or participant

shall be made during the public assembly, unless he/she
violates any pertinent law as evidence warrants.
3. Service of Lawful Orders or Writ
The service of Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE),court, or other lawful orders of
writ is the primary concern of the Dole representative,
sheriff and representative of the government agency
issuing the order, respectively. The role of the PNP is
only supportive. Only when specifically stated and
requested in the order of writ shall the PNP enforce such
order of writ
PHILOSOPHY
Religiosity: Maintaining balance and equilibrium
Nelson Mandela say’s Good wise leader respect the law,
and basic values of their society; my question then is this! As
a future criminologist what can you say about our leaders?
Can they maintain balance and equilibrium to keep our
society and community a happy place to live in?
Only you can answer this, and we hope in the future you will
be one among those people who will find solution to so many
problems in the country involving conflicts, disputes and
grievances.
 DIFFERENTIATING RESTORATIVE
AND RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM
RESTORATIVE SYSTEM
Restorative justice programs are based on the belief
that a parties to a conflict ought to be actively involved
in resolving it and mitigating its negative consequences.
They are also based, in some intances, on a will to return
to local-decision making and community building.
These approaches are also seen as means to encourage
the peaceful expression conflict, to promote tolerance
and inclusiveness, build respect for diversity and
promote responsible community practices
Restorative justice is an approach to problem solving
that, in its various forms, involves the victim, the
offender, their social networks, justice agencies and the
community. Restoratives programes are based on the
fundamental principle that criminal behavior not only
violates the law, but also injures victims and the
community. Any effort to address the consequences of
criminal behavior should, where possible, involve the
offender as well as these injured parties, while also
providing help and support that the victim and offender
require.
 Restorative Justice refers to a process for resolving crime by
focusing on redressing the harm done to the victims, holding
offenders accountable for their actions and, often also,
engaging the community in the resolution of that conflict.
Participation of the parties is an essential part of the process
that emphasizes relationship building, reconciliation and the
development of agreements around a desired outcome
between contexts and the needs of different communities.
Through them, the victim, the offender, and the community
regain some control over the process. Furthermore, the
process itself can often transform the relationships between
the community and the justice system as a whole
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Retribution is often mistakenly understood as seeking
vengeance by inflicting suffering upon an offender.
Instead, retribution needs to be understood as the
justification for criminal punishment. This
understanding of retribution is reflected in the first
definition of “punishment” in the oxford English
Dictionary, which provides Punishment is imposed as
a consequence of a judicial finding that an individual
is guilty of a criminal offense.
Retributive justice is response to criminal behavior
that focuses on the punishment of lawbreakers and
the compensation of victims, In general, the
severity of the punishment is proportionate to the
seriousness of the crime. I know you still
remember what classical theory is, this is now
what it meant by classical theory.
 The concept of retributive justice has been used in variety
of ways, but it is best understood as that form of justice
committed to the following three principles:
a) that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful act,
paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a
proportionate punishment;
b) that it is intrinsically morally good-good without any
reference to any other good that might arise- if some legitimate
punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and only
legitimate punisher.
c) that is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the
innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on
wrongdoers.
The idea of retributive justice has played a dominant
role in theorizing about punishment over the past
view decades, but many features of it-specially the
notions of desert and proportionality, the normative
status of suffering, and ultimate justification for
retribution-remain contested and problematic. And it
is a criminological issue that reflects on the theory of
classical and positivism in curinh the criminality of
man.
So what is then the difference between the two, the
restorative and retributive justice system?
Two projection had been presented here to give
distinctions as to restorative justice system.
 Differentiating them will require answering the
following question:

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

What law was broken? What is the harm?

Who broke the law? How do we repair the harm?

To determine if they can be subjected for What is cost to repair the harm? Do both parties
punishment amenable to it?

What is the punishment? Who is responsible for repairing the harm?

Do the punishment involve in accordance with the What agency will do it? Is it the court or an
law? department of the executive branch of government?
Is it not excessive or unusual?
Finally, the differences among the two as to administration of justice are as follows:
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Crime is violation of people and its
relationship
Violations creates obligation
Justice requires victim, offenders and
community members to correct what is
wrong;
Central focus: meet needs of person harmed,
primarily by the person who caused the harm;
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Crime is a violation of the penal law of the
state
Violations create guilt and require someone to
be accountable
Justice requires the state to determine guilt
and impose punishment
Central focus; offenders get what they
deserve