Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2007, Publicación: 97ª reunión CIT (2008)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for expression of political views. In its earlier comments the Committee has noted section 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to sedition), under which a penalty of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour):

… shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government …, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices.

The Committee has also noted section 154 of the Revised Penal Code (Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances) under which a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed on any person:

… who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State (subsection 1), or who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches, shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law (subsection 2).

The Committee notes the Government’s statements in its latest report, indicating, among other things, that section 142 “does not penalize a person for holding or expressing political views, per se”, and that: “What is punished is the act of making speeches, writings or proclamations that create a clear and present danger to the public safety, public order and public good.”

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee refers to its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, in which it has explained that the range of activities which must be protected under Article 1(a) of the Convention comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views, which may be exercised orally and through the press and other communications media, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and the adoption of policies and laws reflecting them, and which also may be affected by measures of political coercion (paragraph 152); that the Committee has been concerned to see that the offences laid down in the laws against defamation, sedition, subversion, etc., are not defined in such wide or general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views (paragraph 153); and that provisions such as those in sections 142 and 154(1) of the Revised Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views, and in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, they fall within the scope of the Convention (paragraph 159).

The Committee reiterates its firm hope that the Government will take steps in the very near future to amend or repeal sections 142 and 154 of the Revised Penal Code so as to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention, and it requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this direction. The Committee also repeats its request that the Government provide information on the application in practice of sections 142 and 154, including copies of relevant court decisions interpreting these provisions and defining their scope.

Article 1(d). Sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that, under section 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment has discretionary authority to enjoin or force an end to strikes in labour disputes that occur in industries which, in his or her opinion, are “indispensable to the national interest”, by “assuming jurisdiction” over the dispute and certifying it for compulsory arbitration. The President of the Philippines is separately granted the same authority under section 263(g). The declaration of a strike after such an “assumption of jurisdiction” or submission of the dispute to compulsory arbitration is a prohibited activity (section 264(a)), and the violation by any person of any of the provisions of section 264 is punishable by imprisonment (section 272(a) of the Labor Code), which involves an obligation to perform labour (pursuant to section 1727 of the Revised Administrative Code). The Revised Penal Code also lays down sanctions of imprisonment for participants in illegal strikes (section 146).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee further recalls its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, in which it explained that the suppression of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour is compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is limited to situations involving an acute national crisis, and even then the suspension of rights must be strictly limited in time and scope to what is required to meet the emergency situation (paragraph 183); or to essential services in the strict sense of the term – only those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (paragraph 185); or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (paragraph 184).

The Committee must once again point out that section 263(g) of the Labor Code is drafted in such general terms that it could be applied in situations extending well beyond those which conform to the criteria enumerated above. The Committee notes the statement of the Government in its 2007 report indicating that the requisite criteria under the Convention are in fact considered in the practical application of section 263(g). The Committee, however, notes from a Government news release that, in the year 2004 alone, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) intervened under section 263(g) on 47 occasions to “assume jurisdiction” of labour disputes at the point of the filing of strike notices, as a method of “resolving” those disputes.

The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report its further statement indicating that it is not the participation in illegal strikes (prohibited under subsection (a) of section 264) which is penalized under section 272(a), but only the illegal incidental activities prohibited under subsections (b)–(e) of section 264. The Committee notes, however, that, by its very terms, section 272(a) makes the violation by any person “of any of the provisions of article 264” punishable with imprisonment. The Committee asks the Government to supply copies of any interpretive court decisions concerning the sanctions imposed in terms of sections 272(a) and 264(a). The Committee firmly repeats its request that the Government take the necessary steps to amend or repeal sections 263(g), 264(a) and 272(a), in order to bring these provisions of the Labor Code into compliance with the Convention and that, in its next report, it supply information on the progress made towards this end. The Committee also refers the Government to its observations made on this point in relation to the application of Article 3 of Convention No. 87.