Interim Report - Report No 308, November 1997

1. 635. In a communication of 6 January 1997, the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees' Union (TSEU) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of the Philippines. The TSEU provided additional information in a communication dated 3 February 1997 along with attachments.
2. 636. The Government supplied its observations on the case in communications dated 19 March and 17 September 1997.
3. 637. The Philippines has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 638. The Telefunken Semiconductors Employees' Union (TSEU) contends that the Government has violated Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 by the repeated failure of its Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to enforce its own final and executory order for the reinstatement of some 1,500 TSEU members.
2. 639. The TSEU then proceeds to explain the background to its complaint. It states that it is the duly certified sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of Temic Telefunken Microelectronics (Phils.) Inc. ("TEMIC") which has a total workforce of about 3,500 workers, 90 per cent of whom are women.
3. 640. On 2 June 1995, a certification election was held in TEMIC in which the TSEU emerged victorious and was subsequently certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. Soon after the expiration of the 1993-94 collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the parties began collective bargaining negotiations for the conclusion of a new CBA. On 25 August 1995, the parties reached a deadlock in their CBA negotiations. Thereafter, the TSEU states that it filed on 28 August 1995 a notice of strike on grounds of CBA deadlock and unfair labour practices, specifically, the constructive dismissal of three logistic coordinators who were union shop stewards; flagrant violation of the 1993-94 CBA provisions "such as failure to provide uniforms, non-payment of hazard pay and interference with the workers' right to self-organization". On 3 September 1995, the TSEU conducted a strike vote balloting among its members, the results of which showed overwhelming support for a strike. On 14 September 1995, the TSEU conducted the actual strike.
4. 641. On 16 September 1995, Acting Labor Secretary Jose Brillantes issued an Order directing all striking workers to return to work and for the company to admit them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike. The TSEU then contends that on 23 September 1995, five union members were picked up and detained at blocks 1 and 2 of the Taguig police station and later at the Taguig Municipal Jail. On 26 September 1995, the five detained union members were released based on Ministry Circular No. 9 which the then Ministry of Justice issued on 22 May 1985. The circular requires prior clearance from the Department of Labor and Employment before criminal cases arising from labour disputes may be filed. The release order was signed by three senior prosecutors of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig.
5. 642. The TSEU then goes on to say that on 29 September, 8 and 22 November 1995 some TEMIC supervisors filed complaints against officers, shop stewards and some union members whose reinstatement had been previously ordered by Acting Secretary Brillantes. The TSEU asserts that these complaints, which allege that over 200 TEMIC supervisors had been prevented from leaving company premises by striking TSEU members, were baseless. On 12 October 1995, the parties submitted their respective position papers on the issues of bargaining deadlock, the parties' respective charges of unfair labour practice and the legality or illegality of the strike.
6. 643. With regard to the issue of violence against strikers, the TSEU asserts that on 20 October 1995, during a union meeting at the picket line, company security guards and hired goons sprayed tear-gas and water at the strikers. The latter were also stoned by said goons. On 21 October 1995, the union's picket line was ransacked by company security guards assisted by Taguig policemen. After the incident, the union requested Philippine National Police Director-General Recaredo Sarmiento to investigate the incident and to take appropriate action against the Taguig policemen. All told, the strikers were violently dispersed four times and many of them were injured, including pregnant workers.
7. 644. On 27 October 1995, Acting Secretary Brillantes issued an Order decreeing an arbitral award. The Order also found the parties' respective charges of unfair labour practice without merit. The Order furthermore deferred resolution on the issue of the legality or illegality of the strike and instead ordered the conduct of a hearing on the matter, pending the resolution of which issue TEMIC was ordered anew to accept back the striking workers "except the union officers, shop stewards and those with pending criminal charges". Both TEMIC and the TSEU filed the motions for reconsideration of the Order on 8 and 9 November 1995, respectively. On 8 November 1995, an affidavit complaint was filed by TEMIC's Logistics Manager, Volker Rudnitzki, against 1,462 employees of TEMIC for serious illegal detention and physical injuries. On 9 November 1995, the TSEU filed a manifestation on the refusal of TEMIC to accept back the striking workers in violation of the Order of the Secretary dated 27 October 1995.
8. 645. On 15 November 1995, a conference was held among representatives of the union, the company and DOLE regarding the enforcement of the 27 October 1995 Order during which the company committed to submit a list of striking workers to be scheduled for work. On 21 November 1995, the union received from TEMIC a list of the names of 800 employees constituting the first batch to be reinstated. On 22 November 1995, another complaint affidavit for serious illegal detention and physical injuries was filed, this time by Norma Blas, TEMIC's Administration Manager, against 1,639 TEMIC employees. Two days later, during a conference at the DOLE, the company manifested that it would accept back only those employees included in the list it had earlier submitted.
9. 646. On the same date, the Acting Secretary issued an Order which affirmed the 27 October 1995 Order with respect to the portion excluding union officers, shop stewards and those with pending criminal charges from being accepted back by the company pending resolution of the issue involving the legality or illegality of the strike. The TSEU indicates that it then filed an ex parte motion for clarification regarding who was covered by the exclusionary clause in the 27 October 1995 Order. The Acting Secretary issued an Order clarifying, on 7 December 1995, that the exclusion covered only those with pending criminal charges as of the issuance of the 27 October 1995 Order and not those against whom charges had been filed subsequently by some TEMIC supervisors. On 11 December 1995, TEMIC filed a manifestation and motion for reconsideration of the 7 December 1995 Order. On 18 December 1995, the TSEU filed a motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution to compel TEMIC to accept back all reporting workers.
10. 647. The TSEU adds that it took the matter to the Supreme Court where it filed a petition for certiorari on 3 January 1996, questioning the portion of the 27 October 1995 Order excluding union officers, shop stewards and those with pending criminal charges from being accepted by TEMIC back to work. On 27 June 1996, the Labor Secretary Quisumbing issued a Writ of Execution holding that the Orders of 27 October 1995 and 24 November 1995 "have long become final and executory" and ordering DOLE's Sheriff Edgar Paredes to effect the actual physical reinstatement of the workers listed in the writ's attached annex and to seek the aid of the Taguig police station which the Secretary deputized for the enforcement of his Orders.
11. 648. The TSEU indicates that Sheriff Paredes proceeded to TEMIC to enforce the writ on 1 July 1996. However, the company's counsel requested time to confer with his client before the writ was enforced. As a result, the company filed with the Office of the Secretary a motion to quash, recall and/or suspend the Writ of Execution on 3 July 1996. Five days later, Sheriff Paredes proceeded once more to TEMIC and conferred with TEMIC's personnel manager who informed the Sheriff that, in view of TEMIC's pending motion to quash the writ, it would not comply with the same. Subsequently, the Sheriff filed his return reporting that the company had refused to comply with the writ. He recommended that TEMIC's President, Frank Dieter Mayer, its General Manager, Michael Facundo, its Administration Manager, Norma Blas, and its Personnel Manager, Atty. Miguel Umali, all be cited for contempt. The Sheriff also recommended that the company be ordered to pay "the salary differentials of the affected workers from the time of service of the writ".
12. 649. On 9 August 1996, the TSEU filed before the Supreme Court a consolidated reply to the comments of the company in which the union manifested that the company had been refusing to comply with the Writ of Execution issued by Secretary Quisumbing. The TSEU argued that the 27 October 1995 Order's exclusionary clause was being used by TEMIC to effect a mass lay-off. In its reply filed before the Office of the Secretary on 2 September 1996, the company claimed that its motion for reconsideration dated 11 December 1995 remained unresolved; moreover, the phrase "those with pending criminal charges" in the 27 October 1995 Order was "vague". On 23 September 1996, in its rejoinder to the company's reply of 2 September 1996, The TSEU filed an omnibus motion for the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution and to cite TEMIC's management in contempt. The TSEU argued that the company merely pretended to find the disputed phrase ambiguous and was in fact using it to effect a mass lay-off. Also on 23 September 1996, the Supreme Court issued a resolution giving due course to the TSEU's petition for certiorari and ordered the parties to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda.
13. 650. The TSEU contends that, on 17 October 1996, Secretary Quisumbing issued an Order denying the company's motion to quash the Writ of Execution, ruling that the 27 October 1995 and 24 November 1995 Orders were "explicit and free of any ambiguity" and directed the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution for the actual physical reinstatement of the affected workers. The Secretary further directed that, in the event the actual and physical reinstatement was not effected, the company should immediately reinstate the workers on the payroll.
14. 651. On 23 October 1996, TEMIC filed with the Office of the Secretary a motion for reconsideration of the 17 October 1996 Order. The motion was based on the ground that although the affidavits concerning the complaints of illegal detention and physical injury were filed by TEMIC after 27 October 1995 with the Prosecutor's Office, the incidents related thereto were reported to the police before that date, and therefore should also serve as a bar to the reinstatement of the workers concerned. Moreover, because of the union's 3 January 1996 petition with the Supreme Court, the Secretary could no longer have his Order enforced. In an opposition dated 6 November 1996, the union argued that crime reports in police blotters do not count as "criminal charges" and therefore could not be invoked to deny reinstatement to the affected workers; furthermore, the issue raised by the union before the Supreme Court was different from the issue raised by TEMIC and that the court had not issued a temporary restraining order against the DOLE which could, therefore, proceed with the enforcement of the Order for Reinstatement.
15. 652. The TSEU points out that on 21 November 1996 Secretary Quisumbing issued an Order denying TEMIC's motion for reconsideration and affirming his 17 October 1996 Order for the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution. The Secretary held that complaints filed with the police and even with the Prosecutor's Office could not be considered as the "criminal charges" mentioned in the 27 October 1995 Order. He also ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers on the issue of the legality or illegality of the strike. On 3 December 1996 DOLE's Sheriff Francisco Reyes proceeded to TEMIC to enforce the 21 November 1996 Order by the Labor Secretary. However, TEMIC's personnel manager informed him that the company would refuse to comply with the Order and that the company would question it before the Supreme Court. On 4 December 1996, DOLE's technical assistant for the Director of Legal Services proceeded to TEMIC accompanied by Sheriffs Reyes and Mario Gadit, together with the Chief of Police of Taguig and some policemen. Once more TEMIC refused to comply with the Order.
16. 653. On 8 November 1996, the company asked the Supreme Court for an additional period of 15 days to file its memorandum, i.e. until 23 November 1996. On 9 November 1996, the union filed with the Supreme Court its memorandum arguing along the same lines as in its consolidated reply dated 9 August 1996. Moreover, on 18 November 1996, the union filed its opposition to the company's motion for the Supreme Court to grant it additional time to file its memorandum on the ground that an extension would only delay the resolution of the petition. On 21 November 1996, the company asked the Supreme Court that it be given until 9 December 1996 to file its required memorandum.
17. 654. On 9 December 1996, the company filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, questioning the 21 November 1996 Order of the Labor Secretary. It also prayed for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the questioned Order. The union sent a letter on 17 December 1996 to President Ramos, requesting an audience where the President could personally hear the workers' grievances on the failure of DOLE to enforce its own Orders for Reinstatement. On the same day the company filed with the Supreme Court an urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order which it had also prayed for in its petition.
18. 655. On 18 December 1996, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig issued a consolidated resolution dismissing the complaints affidavits filed by TEMIC's Administration Manager, Norma Blas, its Logistics Manager, Volker Rudnitzki, and the company's supervisors against the 1,500 or so workers. The TSEU recalls that the Secretary's Order of 27 October 1995 made the pendency of criminal charges against the workers as the basis of their exclusion from the Reinstatement Order. On 20 December 1996, the head executive assistant in the Office of the Secretary announced that, in view of the pendency of the petition for certiorari filed by the company in the Supreme Court, the DOLE was deferring the enforcement of its Orders for Reinstatement. Union representatives countered that since the Supreme Court had not issued a temporary restraining order, there was no legal obstacle to the enforcement of the Orders. In view of this development, and as a protest action, the union held a vigil at the premises of the Office of the Secretary until reinstatement of the workers was effected. Secretary Quisumbing himself arrived later that night and agreed to allow the workers to stay. The Secretary also advised the union's counsel to submit an ex parte motion for garnishment which he promised to grant.
19. 656. On 21 December 1996 the union, as advised by Secretary Quisumbing himself, filed an urgent motion for garnishment and/or attachment, noting that the Supreme Court had not issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of the Orders for Reinstatement. The union argued that, in view of the refusal of TEMIC to comply with the Orders for Reinstatement, the company's deposits in banks which the union had identified in its motion, be garnished for the payment of the workers' back wages. On 23 December 1996 the union received a reply from the Presidential Palace of Malacanang which justified TEMIC's refusal to obey the DOLE's Orders for Reinstatement as based on the fact that the union itself had brought the matter to the Supreme Court. On the same date, Secretary Quisumbing issued an Order requiring the company to submit its comments on the union's urgent motion for garnishment filed on 21 December 1996. In a comment/opposition dated 27 December 1996 which it filed with the Office of the Secretary, TEMIC opposed the union's motion for garnishment of the company's bank deposits on the ground that the Secretary had no such power since TEMIC has filed its petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
20. 657. On 30 December 1996, Secretary Quisumbing wrote to the Director-General of the Philippine National Police (PNP) requesting "assistance" with respect to the presence of the workers at DOLE, which he claimed was causing "very serious danger". At around 12.30 p.m. on 31 December 1996, after having spent Christmas at the DOLE premises, the workers were violently dispersed by the PNP. Many of the workers were injured. They were later detained at the Western Police District Headquarters. At the inquest conducted before the Manila Prosecutor's Office in the afternoon of 31 December 1996, the union's counsel argued that the workers did not commit any offence. The workers were later ordered to be released.
21. 658. On 13 January 1997, Executive Secretary Ruben Torres wrote to Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, explaining that in view of the union's and the company's respective petitions with the Supreme Court, "out of respect to a co-equal body", the executive department was deferring action on the labour case. Mr. Torres, moreover, stated that there was "no factual and legal basis to the claim" that Secretary Quisumbing's Orders had become final as to be a proper subject of Writs of Execution.
22. 659. The TSEU, for its part, indicates that it filed with the Office of the Secretary its reply to the company's opposition to its motion for garnishment in which it argued that because of TEMIC's refusal to obey the Orders for Reinstatement, the garnishment of the company's bank deposits to pay the workers' back wages was legally justified as a "make-whole" economic remedy. Additionally, the TSEU cited jurisprudence which held that an Order for Reinstatement was enforceable even pending the determination of the legality or illegality of a strike. On 28 January 1997, the union filed a manifestation and motion in which it informed the Labor Secretary that the criminal complaints filed by TEMIC's managers against the 1,500 or so workers had already been dismissed on 18 December 1996 by the Pasig Prosecutor's Office. In addition, the TSEU filed with the Supreme Court its supplemental opposition to the company's urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The union contended that the Court should not look with favour on the inconsistency of TEMIC: while it was the company itself which petitioned the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over the labour dispute, TEMIC was now questioning the Secretary's orders in the exercise of such jurisdiction. Finally, the TSEU filed a manifestation and motion with the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, this time not only for the reinstatement of the union officers, shop stewards and "those with pending criminal charges" which had already been dismissed, but also for all the rest of the 1,500 workers whose reinstatement continued to be blocked by TEMIC. In a resolution dated 13 January 1997, the Supreme Court notified the parties that their separate petitions had been consolidated. In the same resolution, the Court also granted TEMIC's three motions for extension of time to file its memorandum while requiring the union to submit its comment on the company's own petition. The Court also merely noted the company's urgent manifestation and motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

B. The Government's reply

1. 660. In its initial reply dated 19 March 1997, the Government points out that the Temic Telefunken Microelectronics (Phils.) Inc. case is already outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Department and is now with the Supreme Court of the Philippines on account of the petitions filed by the parties. Indeed, the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the two petitions by consolidating them in a resolution dated 13 January 1997.
2. 661. The Government further points out that the "eviction" of the members of the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees' Union (TSEU) from within the office premises of the Secretary of Labor and Employment on 30 December 1996, was carried out pursuant to section 4 of the "Act Ensuring the Free Exercise by the People of their Right Peaceably to Assemble and Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances and for Other Purposes", which provides that:
   • Section 4, Permit when required and when not required - A written permit shall be required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in a private property, in which case the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act.
3. 662. In its more recent communication of 17 September 1997, the Government indicates that the Order issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment on 21 November 1996 affirming and ordering the immediate execution of the Order dated 17 October 1996 reinstating, actually and physically, the workers of Temic Telefunken Inc. had been duly served by the Sheriff designated by the Legal Service of the Department of Labor and Employment but was returned unsatisfied and unexecuted last 3 December 1996. The Government states that the management of Temic Telefunken Inc. refused to honour the return-to-work Order on the contention that such Order could not yet be enforced in view of the pending petition for certiorari filed by the management with the Supreme Court. The Government adds that the entire records of the case have been turned over to the Office of the Solicitor-General for proper representation. Finally, to date the Supreme Court has not yet promulgated a decision on the case.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 663. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern the dismissal of approximately 1,500 officials and members of the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees' Union (TSEU) who participated in strike action and the refusal of Temic Telefunken Microelectronics (Phils.) Inc. ("TEMIC") to abide by various Orders of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to reinstate these workers in their jobs, as well as the subsequent failure of the Government to enforce the DOLE's Orders for Reinstatement. These allegations also refer to the detention of five union members and to acts of violence carried out against strikers by company security guards as well as the police.
2. 664. As regards the alleged dismissal of around 1,500 TSEU members further to their participation in strike action, the Committee notes that on 16 September 1995 Acting Labor Secretary Jose Brillantes issued an Order directing all striking workers to return to work and for the company to admit them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike. On 27 October 1995, the Acting Secretary issued another Order which deferred resolution on the issue of the legality or illegality of the strike and instead ordered the conduct of a hearing on the matter, pending the resolution of which issue TEMIC was ordered anew to accept back the striking workers "except the union officers, shop stewards and those with pending criminal charges". However, shortly afterwards, i.e. on 8 and 22 November 1995 respectively, two TEMIC supervisors filed complaints against approximately 1,500 employees of TEMIC (also TSEU members) for serious illegal detention and physical injuries. They alleged in their complaints that during the strike over 200 TEMIC supervisors had been violently prevented from leaving company premises by striking TSEU members. According to the complainant, these complaints were baseless and were filed by the TEMIC supervisors so as to effect a mass lay-off through the exclusionary clause of the Order of 27 October 1995.
3. 665. The Committee notes that the Government does not refute the allegation that the complaints filed by the two TEMIC supervisors against union members on 8 and 22 November 1995, respectively, were unfounded. On the contrary, it is the Committee's understanding that the Government was of the same view too since on 24 November 1995, the Acting Secretary issued an Order which affirmed the Order of 27 October 1995 and issued another Order on 7 December 1995 clarifying that the exclusionary clause contained in the Order of 27 October 1995 covered only those with pending criminal charges as of the issuance of the 27 October 1995 Order and not those against whom charges had been filed subsequently by TEMIC supervisors. The Committee further notes that Labor Secretary Quisumbing issued: (i) a Writ of Execution on 27 June 1996 holding that the Orders of 27 October and 24 November 1995 "have long become final and executory"; (ii) an Order on 17 October 1996 denying the company's motion to quash the Writ of Execution, ruling that the 27 October and 24 November 1995 Orders were "explicit and free of any ambiguity". The Labor Secretary then directed the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution for the actual physical reinstatement of the affected workers; (iii) an Order on 21 November 1996 affirming his 17 October 1996 Order for the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution and holding that complaints filed with the police could not be considered as the "criminal charges" mentioned in the 27 October 1995 Order.
4. 666. The Committee notes with serious concern that in spite of the issuance of the above Orders, first by the Acting Labor Secretary and then by the Labor Secretary himself, TEMIC refused to comply with the Orders ordering the reinstatement of the approximately 1,500 union members who went on strike except the union officers, shop stewards and those with pending criminal charges. On the contrary, the Committee notes that TEMIC supervisors had recourse to various delaying tactics including the pressing of charges of illegal detention and physical injuries against the dismissed employees of TEMIC. These charges, which were filed after the issuance of the first Order for Reinstatement of 27 October 1995, were in any event subsequently found to be groundless by the Labor Secretary himself.
5. 667. Thus, there is no doubt in the Committee's mind that the 1,500 or so TSEU members were dismissed and not reinstated subsequently for having participated in strike action. Furthermore, the Committee regrets to note that the Government merely indicates that its Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) sent its Sheriffs on three different occasions to enforce the Orders for Reinstatement (8 July, 3 and 4 December 1996) but that they were unable to do so because of TEMIC's refusal to comply with the same. The Committee deplores the Government's utter inability to enforce the DOLE's Orders for Reinstatement. In this respect, the Committee reminds the Government that it is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and that cases concerning anti-union discrimination should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders and members dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 738 and 749).
6. 668. In view of the principles enunciated above and of the fact that over two years have elapsed since the first Order for Reinstatement was issued, the Committee would urge the Government to ensure that the 1,500 or so TSEU leaders and members who were dismissed further to their participation in strike action are reinstated immediately in their jobs under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike with compensation for lost wages and benefits, in conformity with the DOLE's Orders for Reinstatement. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard. The Committee further notes that the TSEU and TEMIC filed petitions with the Supreme Court which has consolidated the two petitions in a resolution dated 13 January 1997. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on this case.
7. 669. Turning to the allegation that five TSEU members were detained on 23 September 1995 at blocks 1 and 2 of the Taguig police station and later at the Taguig Municipal Jail, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not provided its observations in this respect and asks it to do so. While noting that the five union members were released on 26 September 1995, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that the detention, even if only briefly, of trade unionists on the grounds of trade union activities constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights and an infringement of freedom of association (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 70 and 75). Similarly, the Committee regrets to note that the Government has not replied to the allegation that on 20 October 1995, during a union meeting at the picket line, company security guards and hired goons sprayed tear-gas and water at the strikers who were also stoned, and that on 21 October 1995 the union's picket line was ransacked by company security guards assisted by Taguig policemen. In this respect, the Committee must emphasize that in cases of strike movements, the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened (see Digest, op. cit., para. 580). Noting that the union requested the Philippine National Police to investigate the incident and to take appropriate action against the Taguig policemen involved, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this investigation.
8. 670. As regards the allegation that TSEU members were violently dispersed by the Philippine National Police from the office premises of the Secretary of Labor and Employment on 30 December 1996 and that many of them were injured, the Committee notes the Government's statement that this eviction was carried out pursuant to section 4 of the "Act Ensuring the Free Exercise by the People of their Right Peaceably to Assemble and Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances and for other Purposes". In this respect, the Committee would recall that while trade unions must conform to the general provisions applicable to all public meetings and must respect the reasonable limits which may be fixed by the authorities to avoid disturbances in public places, the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of law and order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 141 and 137).