Informe provisional - Informe núm. 226, Junio 1983

294. The Committee has already examined this case at its February 1983 meeting when it submitted interim conclusions to the Governing Body. The Government subsequently sent certain information in a communication dated 4 May 1983.

1. 294. The Committee has already examined this case at its February 1983 meeting when it submitted interim conclusions to the Governing Body. The Government subsequently sent certain information in a communication dated 4 May 1983.
2. 295. The Philippines have ratified 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 296. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee noted that, although the arrest and detention of Mr. Bonifacio Tupaz, a trade union leader, alleged by the complainant was not denied by the Government, both parties gave contradictory reasons for this arrest: the complainant indicated that Mr. Tupaz was arrested because of his trade union connections, whereas the Government claimed that he was arrested for criminal acts of conspiracy to commit a rebellion and insurrection punishable under the Penal Code. The Committee regretted that the complainant, despite an invitation to submit additional information in support of its allegations, had not substantiated its claim that the arrest was connected with trade union activities. On the other hand, the Government had not provided specific information as to the type of activities committed by Mr. Tupaz that were said to constitute the acts of conspiracy. Faced with this paucity of precise information, the Committee drew attention to the importance which it attaches to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union activities.
2. 297. As the criminal case concerning Mr. Tupaz was being tried before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City and his petition for habeas corpus had been submitted to the Supreme Court for decision, the Committee requested the Government to transmit, as soon as possible, information on the detailed charges brought against the trade union leader in question, as well as further information on the trial.

B. Further developments

1. 298. In a communication dated 298 May 1983, the Government states that Mr. Tupaz was freed from detention and placed under house arrest by order of the President of the Republic on 1 May 1983. It points out that since October 1982, one month after his arrest, Mr. Tupaz had been confined in the Metro Manila General Hospital to receive treatment for diabetes and his condition has been reported to have improved remarkably since then. According to the Government, during this confinement, Mr. Tupaz was able to receive not only members of his family but other friends and colleagues in the labour movement and in fact held meetings with officials of his own labour federation.
2. 299. As regards the criminal case pending against Mr. Tupaz, the Government states that the preliminary investigation indicates the commission of activities by the accused to conspire with the Pagkakaisang Manggagawang Pilipino (PMP) and the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), two groups identified as fronts for the Communist Party In the Philippines, and that consultations were held by the accused to incite rebellion by instigating strikes to destroy the economy and take up arms against the Government. According to the Government, the prosecution commenced presenting evidence on 2 February 1983 and further hearings were held on 16 February and 2 and 16 March. A hearing scheduled for 27 April was postponed to 11 May 1983. It undertakes to inform the Committee of other developments.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 300. The Committee notes that on 1 May 1983 the President of the Republic ordered the release - subject to house arrest - of the trade union leader Bonifacio Tupaz who had been arrested in September 1982 on charges of conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection. The Committee also notes that during his detention Mr. Tupaz was hospitalised for diabetes and that, according to the Government, he was able to meet trade union colleagues and receive family visits without interference.
2. 301. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the criminal case against this trade union leader is based on charges that he had connections with two so-called fronts for the Communist Party and that, according to the Government, he held consultations to incite rebellion and take up arms against the Government. In view of the fact that hearings before the Court of First Instance are continuing and that Mr. Tupaz appears to benefit from normal judicial guarantees, the Committee considers that it should await receipt of information on the outcome of the trial before examining this case further.