Informe provisional - Informe núm. 262, Marzo 1989

1. 268. The Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) presented a complaint of alleged violations of trade union rights against the government of the Philippines in an initial communication of 25 February 1988. It sent additional information on 28 May and 21 November 1988, and 24 January 1989. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) also presented a complaint concerning the same matters in a letter dated 8 November 1988.
2. 269. The Government supplied its observations on the case in communications dated 9 January and 10 February 1989.
3. 270. The Philippines have ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98) and the Rural Workers' Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141).

A.The complainants' allegations

1. 271. In its lengthy communication of 25 February 1988, the KMU alleges rampant and continuous violations of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 105 by means of trade union repression and the formation of at least 142 vigilante groups engaged in anti-worker activities. It refers to previous cases against the Philippines (Nos. 1192 and 1323 which it lodged in 1982 and 1985 respectively) and alleges that the present Government has done little to improve the political and economic conditions of Filipino workers. It alleges in fact that from March 1986 the Government has used both indirect means and direct police action and court or administrative orders to repress labour organisations, including the KMU, its leaders and members.
2. 272. As examples of indirect repression, the KMU refers to: the misuse of President Aquino's popularity (May Day Speech whose promises have not been fulfilled); the use of extremist groups' threats to justify irrational government policies (e.g. rightist coup attempts or red-scare tactics); claims of inherited general economic problems even after two years in power; alleged union rivalries; the replacement of a pro-labour Minister of Labour by the former Vice-President of the Employers' Confederation of the Philippines; bias in the appointment of labour delegates to the 1986 Constitutional Commission; the proposal to enact a National Internal Security Act providing for arrest and detention without warrant on the ground of a danger to national security; the creation of false hopes through the adoption of unsound recovery and reform programmes. The KMU alleges the collusion of the media in misleading and intimidating the workers.
3. 273. The KMU lists 15 pieces of labour relations legislation adopted by the previous Government which it claims to have exposed as being anti-union and anti-worker in character. It cites the current President's promise in a campaign speech to "revise and rescind laws that repress the rights of workers and their trade unions" and points out that, as early as March 1986 (the month following the change of government), the KMU presented to her, through the then Minister of Labour, a list of proposals to repeal and amend these laws. Again the President made certain commitments in her May Day Speech of 1986, but the KMU claims that the workers are still awaiting action in this regard. For example, Executive Order No. 111 was issued on 24 December 1986 but published in the Official Gazette only on 16 February 1987 and did not fully repeal the Labour Code (No. 442) or anti-strike legislation.
4. 274. According to the KMU, the Government is too influenced by big business, vested interests and foreign monopolistic companies. It claims that the new Constitution did not resolve the workers' grievances and, indeed, by virtue of its article 7 provides that all existing laws shall remain operative until amended or repealed by the National Assembly; the KMU points out that since the Assembly is still getting organised and has set other legislative priorities, Filipino workers remain faced with the same repressive laws. In addition, it claims that the Government not only appointed a labour leader from a rival organisation (the TUCP) to the Constitutional Commission, but supported a TUCP official in the latest elections and continues to recognise the TUCP as a dominant labour centre although statistics show it to be in the minority.
5. 275. As examples of direct police, military and paramilitary repression, the KMU refers to: physical assaults on and killing of picketers and striking workers; arrest, detention and prosecution of strikers as well as confiscation and forfeiture of their property; destruction of strikers' banners and other means of publicity; abduction, murder and intimidation (through surveillance and threats) of strike leaders; non-observance of current legislation on strikes (e.g. keeping a 50-metre distance from the picket line); use of vigilante groups; use of spies within unions or factories; support for company-dominated unions.
6. 276. The KMU cites four specific occasions when the Government allegedly failed to act decisively to redress violations of trade union rights: (1) the slaying of the KMU Chairman Rolando M. Olalia and his driver Leonor Alay-ay on 13 November 1986; (2) the violent dispersal of marchers in front of the United States Embassy on 4 July 1986; (3) the massacre of six workers in Mendiola on 22 January 1987 (see Annex); (4) the brutal dispersal of striking employees on 31 January 1987 at Mariveles, Bataan. It also alleges that during the Government's two years in office, a total of 654 persons have been arrested, 413 injured, 30 killed (in addition to the above-mentioned massacre) and 20 reported missing and refers to lists it provides compiled by the Manila-based Commission on Trade Union and Human Rights.
7. 277. It also refers to repression through administrative and judicial decisions, often issued without due notice and hearings and coloured by incompetent judges, corrupt labour officials and undue delays (sometimes over two years) in dealing with cases. For example, on several occasions the Secretary of Labour has exercised his discretion under section 264(g) of the Labour Code either to assume jurisdiction over a strike or to certify a labour dispute to the National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration; once either action is taken, the union is prevented from declaring a strike and strikers are compelled to return to work. Moreover, according to the complainant, when an order is made in such circumstances, it does not resolve the grievance in dispute. For example, it claims that in compulsory arbitrations the NLRC regularly issues injunctions based on the provisions of sections 218(e) and 265 of the Labour Code (to stop strikes or slow-downs), without due notice and hearings, and using the police and military to implement them. Employers allegedly then hire gangsters to join in the violent dispersal of strikers at picket lines. The KMU cites statistics for January to December 1987 during which period eight strikers were killed, 190 injured, 12 reported missing and 509 arrested after such picket-line violence.
8. 278. As for the regular courts, the KMU claims they issue ex parte injunctions despite lack of authority to do so. This prompted the KMU to protest to and seek dialogue with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on 13 August 1986, a request that went unheeded. In addition, appeals from the Department of Labour decisions to the Supreme Court take years to be heard and, in any case, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the validity of the past regime's anti-labour laws. The KMU also criticises the provisions of Department of Justice Circular No. 10, enforced by the courts since 3 July 1987, which substantially increases the amount of bail for provisional release of accused persons; inability to raise the bail means that strikers may spend weeks in prison.
9. 279. In summary, the KMU notes that as early as August 1986 its General Secretary appealed to the President to stop trade union repression in the form of an 11-point demand, none of which was acted on. Although the President released from military detention several political and trade union detainees, human rights violations continue unabated: in this regard the KMU attaches copies of its numerous protests and detailed collations of events (including photographs and press clippings), in particular concerning atrocities in Visayas and Mindanao. One of the detailed lists supplied is dated 28 September 1987 and was addressed to the Regional Director of the Department of Labour in Bacolod City (capital of Negros) by the National Federation of Sugar Workers/Food and General Trades (NFSW/FGT) pursuant to a Presidential Directive asking the Department to take appropriate action on complaints filed by human rights groups. Another list, 19 pages long dated 12 February 1988 and entitled "Human Rights Violations", goes into great detail about the date and place of over 120 incidents, the names and addresses of the victims, the methods used (stabbings, illegal searches, punching during interrogations, etc.), the perpetrators (from specifically named military officers to descriptions such as "unidentified men in fatigue uniform") and the reasons (covering union membership and "suspected New People's Army (NPA) member" or even "unknown"). It also annexes a copy of the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) "Statistical report on human rights violations for the period 1 January to 31 December 1986" and information on the murder, wounding, disappearances or arrests of members of non-KMU labour organisations.
10. 280. Lastly, the KMU describes the emergence of vigilante anti-communist and cult groups - allegedly supported by the Government - and their involvement in trade union repression. For example, the hacking to death of unionist Peter Alderite of Davao City by the "Tadtad" group. It annexes its own preliminary list of such groups as well as that prepared by the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates from which it appears that the Presidential Committee on Human Rights called for the dismantling of the particular umbrella group called "Alsa Masa" (uprising of the masses) whose power is such that the Davao City council granted it a budgetary allocation. The KMU addresses an appeal for an immediate on-the-spot investigation by the responsible ILO Committee.
11. 281. To its communication of 28 May 1988, the KMU attaches a copy of the 18 March 1988 Report of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the Philippine Senate, which recommends the dismantling of vigilante groups and the prosecution of their members who have committed criminal acts and human rights violations.
12. 282. The WFTU, in its letter of 8 November 1988, also refers to the 1986 assassination of KMU Chairman Rolando Olalia and the July 1988 disappearance of Benjamin Clutario, member of the Public Information Bureau of the KMU, as well as the assassination on 10 October 1988 of Oscar Bantayan, a KMU national council member and Deputy Secretary-General of the National Federation of Labour.
13. 283. The KMU, in its communication of 21 November 1988, alleges that after a successful strike by jeepney (local taxis) drivers that day in Manila, Mr. Medardo Roda, leader of the Jeepney Drivers Alliance - PISTON, held a press conference and was arrested at the National Press Club by General Lim of the Western Police District. Mr. Roda is charged with inciting public unrest. It further alleges that Rosero Alberio, a KMU shop steward at the Atlas Mining Corp. in Cebu was shot dead on 14 November 1988, presumably by vigilante groups. That same evening, according to the KMU, Egor Mencindo Cueva, also a shop steward at Atlas Mining, was shot at.
14. 284. The KMU, in its communication of 24 January 1989, alleges that on 20 January suspected vigilantes shot dead Mr. Meliton Roxas outside the Nestlé factory in Cabuyao, Laguna. He was union president in Nestlé Cabuyao, an affiliate of the KMU. According to the complainant, his death came about when the Nestlé union was involved in a dispute with the management over unfair labour practices, namely the dismissal of union leaders. The KMU believes that the management is behind the killing because it was well orchestrated, well financed and politically motivated. It adds that on 17 January 1989, Mr. Rodrigo Francisco, NFSW local union president, and Mr. Nestor Barros, organiser, were killed by vigilantes and soldiers in Negros. Prior to this, the military massacred certain families in Escalante and tortured Mr. Samuel Sabidalas, the NFSW Regional Co-ordinator.

B. The Government's reply

1. 285. In its communication of 9 January 1989, the Government points out that the KMU is not a duly registered labour centre under the national legislation and notes that there are other labour organisations which are officially registered and claim more membership. It thus stresses that the KMU does not have the sole right to speak on behalf of the Philippine labour force, but it does not dispute the KMU's right to be heard. The Government also takes exception to certain expressions used by the KMU implying, in particular, a conspiracy on the part of members of the Government and its officials to commit the acts complained of in this case.
2. 286. As regards the allegations themselves, the Government points out that the KMU has made several general statements, e.g., that "the respondents are suppressing democratic trade unionism in the Philippines and repressing trade union rights of the Filipino workers, their labour organisations and their leaders". It considers that it is not necessary to reply to every general statement so made, and in this connection puts forward a general reply that the Government and the officials named in the complaint have no intention of committing or sanctioning any act which is inimical to the interest of each Filipino worker. On the contrary, as public officials, it is their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution, which provides in article 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.
   • 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 on investments, and to expansion and growth.
3. 287. In addition, the Government points out that the KMU makes allegations which stem from the continuing rivalry among labour groups, e.g. "appointing a TUCP official to the Constitutional Commission and the New Congress of the Philippines". It likewise refrains from making comments on allegations of this nature, and states that it can only make comments on those allegations which may be considered as allegations of fact and specific and germane enough to warrant such comments.
4. 288. Turning to the specific alleged violations of trade union rights, the Government notes that the KMU refers to repression through continued implementation of anti-worker and anti-union laws, citing 15 pieces of legislation all enacted under the previous administration. The Government replies that it is morally impossible to dismantle overnight an allegedly oppressive machinery built up over a 14-year period by a totalitarian regime, unless done under a regime more totalitarian than that which it has replaced. It admits that after February 1986 and before the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, President Aquino had the power to legislate, but stresses that instead of exercising such powers to the hilt, she chose to restore democracy in the Philippines within the shortest time possible.
5. 289. The Government lists the achievements of the current administration: after her assumption of office in February 1986, the President promulgated a "Freedom Constitution"; she convened a Constitutional Commission to draft a Constitution which was ratified overwhelmingly in a plebiscite in early 1987; in May 1987, the first real election in 18 years for members of the legislative body was held; in January 1988, the first real election in 16 years for local officials was held. The Government claims that this manifests the thrust of the present administration to restore the law-making function to the freely chosen representatives of the people. It did not succumb to the temptation which has always confronted those who, by accident or by design, have assumed absolute power.
6. 290. In addition, the Government lists the following concrete steps taken by the present administration in respect of the legislation:
7. (1) Promulgation of Executive Order No. 111 on 24 December 1986 (which, among other things, repealed Letter of Instruction 1458, which had allowed management to replace striking workers who defied return-to-work orders); repeal of the one-union-one-industry policy, thus granting labour the discretion to organise and combine; liberalisation of restrictive Labour Code requirements such as the strike vote and union registration requirements; banning of police and military forces from picket lines, except when criminal acts are committed therein.
8. (2) Convening of a tripartite committee composed of representatives of Government and labour and employers to discuss labour legislation, at which the KMU was accorded the opportunity to be represented and heard. Thus far, the committee has adopted at least 23 proposed amendments to the various labour laws. Among such proposals are: promotion of the use of voluntary modes of dispute settlement, particularly voluntary arbitration; promulgation of comprehensive guide-lines to ensure due process before an injunction can be issued by the National Labour Relations Commission; strict implementation of the 50-metre rule for peace-keeping forces during strikes and the no-carrying-of-firearms rule for peace-keeping forces and security guards; allowing striking workers to put up temporary structures for shelter, provided such structures do not obstruct free ingress and egress, as well as public thoroughfares. It is expected that the committee shall continue its meetings to propose additional legislation.
9. 291. The proposals of the committee have been endorsed by the present administration and have been certified as urgent legislative proposals.
10. 292. As regards the alleged worker repression through injunctions, the Government states that under the present law, even temporary injunctions may be issued by the NLRC only after due notice and hearing: section 218 e)of the Labour Code. In any event, the tripartite committee referred to above has proposed the establishment of more comprehensive guide-lines and these are pending with the legislature.
11. 293. As to the granting of an injunction which becomes a matter of course when the Secretary of Labour assumes jurisdiction over a particular labour dispute, the Government points out that the KMU itself has, in several instances, requested the Secretary of Labour to assume jurisdiction. It notes that the Secretary of Labour assumes jurisdiction only in cases where the dispute is likely to affect adversely the national interest, such as disputes in hospitals, public utilities and companies engaged in the generation or distribution of energy.
12. 294. With regard to the alleged worsening of economic conditions over the past two years, the Government refers to the following facts: it is now in the process of implementing a comprehensive agrarian reform programme; prior to 1986, the annual GNP growth was negative, but grew by 1.5 per cent in 1986, 5.1 per cent in 1987 and 6.7 per cent in 1988; prior to 1986, in a span of four years the value of the Philippine peso depreciated by as much as 160 per cent, however, since 1986, notwithstanding various internal and external pressures, the peso has been stable. It adds that the present administration has enacted various laws to improve the lot of workers, for example, to remove the 1,000 peso ceiling on the 13th month pay; to integrate the cost-of-living allowance into the basic wage; to grant wage increases, particularly for low income earners.
13. 295. As regards alleged direct repression through the police, military and paramilitary units, the Government states categorically that the Constitution, the law and the Government do not tolerate any form of trade union repression. Anyone who does so is subject to criminal prosecution. There may have been incidents where members of the police or military have committed such acts or even murder, kidnapping, etc., but such crimes were the individuals' own acts, for which they too will be held liable. To prevent such events from occurring, an accord between the military, organised labour and the Department of Labour and Employment was reached on 21 September 1988. The accord is not only expected to ease the apprehension of workers when restraining orders are served, but to ensure the co-ordination between the military and the Labour Department in facilitating the investigation of cases involving labour leaders and vigilante groups.
14. 296. On the other hand, states the Government, there have been incidents where striking workers have resorted to methods which were not peaceful and orderly. No immunity is granted under Philippine law, as in the laws of other jurisdictions, for those who, in the guise of exercising their rights, transgress the rights of others. It supplies statistics for the last six years on the number of labour organisations cancelled or registered, the number of collective bargaining agreements filed and the number of workers covered by them.
15. 297. Likewise for the alleged creation of vigilante groups the Government states categorically that the administration and the law do not tolerate any person or group of persons who take the law into their own hands. Such person or group is subject to criminal prosecution under Philippine law. It acknowledges, however, that there has been an alarming increase in the number of insurgent terrorist-instigated violent incidents which have caused the spontaneous proliferation of civilian volunteer organisations for community self-defence against criminals and other lawless elements. Thus, in order that respect for the law and human rights is observed by these volunteer organisations, guide-lines for their operations were issued on 30 October 1987. The guide-lines provide, among others, that (1) volunteer organisations shall exclusively be for self-defence and protection; (2) membership shall be purely on a voluntary basis and thoroughly screened to weed out criminal elements; (3) such organisations shall not engage in any activity contrary to the law and any member who commits any offence shall be prosecuted. Furthermore, such organisations are also not allowed to operate offensively against the right of self-defence.
16. 298. The Government points out that a mechanism has been set up so that the guide-lines and safeguards may be monitored. It stresses that the guide-lines seek to ensure that civilian volunteer self-defence organisations do not commit any abuses or any actions contary to law; that victims or complainants will be given justice and the abusers investigated and charges laid in court when warranted. To stop the proliferation of such unsupervised civilian volunteer self-defence organisations, the Civilian Auxiliary Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) was created under the authority of the Department of National Defence. Moreover, in response to the increasing reports that a number of labour leaders have been disappearing, the Department of Labour and Employment and the Department of National Defence together with representatives from the labour sector created a committee that will look into and investigate such disappearances. This would make it easier for the Government to prosecute those who have been found responsible for such disappearances. The creation of the committee is also expected to give the Philippines Commission on Human Rights the necessary assistance and facilitate the investigation of these unfortunate incidents.
17. 299. The Government emphasises that respect for human rights is one of the top priorities of the present administration, as proven by the fact that one of its first acts was the creation of a Presidential Committee on Human Rights to investigate and recommend prosecution of those guilty of human rights violations, followed by the creation of an independent Commission on Human Rights under the 1987 Constitution. While recognising the existence of problems in respect of trade unionism, it gives the assurance that it shall continue to adhere to the principles of free trade unionism and the recognition of human rights.
18. 300. In its communication of 10 February 1989, the Government states that Mr. Roda (referred to in the KMU telex of 21 November 1988) has been released on bail after being arrested for breach of the peace and incitement to sedition; formal charges have been filed and the trial is under way. It adds that as regards the deaths of Messrs. Alberio, Roxas, Francisco and Barros, the military and the police are presently investigating these matters, as is the Philippines Congress. The Philippines Commission on Human Rights is examining to date only the Roxas case, since it is the subject of a specific complaint before it. The Government states that other details will follow later.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 301. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied in full to all of the complainants' communications of 8 and 21 November 1988 and 24 January 1989, which contain specific allegations of arrest and murder of officers of the KMU and its affiliated organisations. It accordingly sets aside its examination of these aspects of the case and requests the Government to send its detailed comments and additional information as soon as possible.
2. 302. As regards the KMU's allegation that the present Government has indirectly repressed the workers by not immediately repealing the legislation enacted by the previous regime, the Committee notes the Government's statements that Executive Order No. 111 of 1986 did in fact repeal some of the offensive past legislation and that a tripartite committee has drafted concrete proposals which are to receive urgent legislative attention. The Committee recalls that these developments were already noted with interest by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its 1987 observation concerning the Government's observance of certain provisions of the Labour Code the repeal or amendment of which has been requested for some time. The present Committee likewise criticised some of the legislative enactments listed in the present case in an earlier case, to which the KMU in fact refers (Case No. 1323, 241st Report, paragraphs 341-374, approved by the Governing Body in November 1985).
3. 303. While conscious of the care any government must employ when attempting a major revision of labour legislation, the Committee would nevertheless urge the Government to do its utmost to facilitate the rapid enactment of the proposals already agreed upon by the tripartite committee described above and to give particular attention to the points raised by the Experts over the past several years so that full conformity between the labour legislation and the requirements of Convention No. 87 can be achieved. The Committee refrains from commenting on the composition of the tripartite committee since it appears that the complainant was able to present its views therein.
4. 304. The Committee notes that the KMU's second basic allegation centres on repression of strike action through administrative decisions or judicial injunctions and that the Government replies that proposals are currently before the legislature to tighten procedures for the issuing by the NLRC of temporary injunctions in strike situations. As for the role of the Secretary of Labour (who can assume jurisdiction over a labour dispute likely to affect the national interest), the Committee would recall that it is precisely this provision in the Labour Code (section 264(g)) which has been criticised by the Committee of Experts for many years as being too broad.
5. 305. It accordingly repeats the principles of the ILO supervisory bodies on this matter, namely that strike action may be banned or limited only in the public service or essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, 1983, para. 214 and Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 1985, paras. 387 and 394). Like the, Committee of Experts in its most recent observation of the Philippines' observance of Convention No. 87, the present Committee requests the Government to amend section 264 g)so as to restrict the imposition of compulsory arbitration to strikes in essential services as fall within this definition.
6. 306. The Committee notes that the Government makes no comment on the alleged abuse of Department of Justice Circular No. 10 which, since July 1987, has meant that many accused strikers cannot raise bail, or on the alleged problems and delays in the regular court system. It accordingly requests the Government to send its observations on this aspect of the case as soon as possible.
7. 307. As regards the alleged direct repression of strikers and union members and officials by the police, military, paramilitary or employer-backed gangsters, as well as by vigilante groups, the Committee notes that it has already examined similar allegations in a recent KMU complaint concerning, in particular, Negros Province (Case No. 1426, 259th Report, paragraphs 564-588, approved by the Governing Body in November 1988). It observes that the Government's reply concerning the involvement of the military and vigilante groups (e.g. the October 1987 guide-lines, the creation of the Civilian Auxiliary Force Geographical Unit, and inter-departmental co-operation through committees and accords in investigating complaints) repeats the information supplied in that previous case, as do the indications supplied on the investigatory role played by the Philippines Commission on Human Rights.
8. 308. In view of the Government's recognition of some cases of extremely serious criminal activity by individual members of the forces of law and order and the "alarming increase" of violence which, according to the Government, has caused the proliferation of "self-defence" groups, the Committee must stress that a climate of violence such as that surrounding the murder or disappearance of trade union leaders constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights and that such acts require severe measures on the part of the authorities to punish those responsible and avoid recurrences (see Digest, para. 76). Even more, the Committee draws the Government's attention to its general principle that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop in an atmosphere free of violence, pressure and threats of any kind and where there is respect for basic human rights (see, in particular,,259th Report, Case No. 1434 (Colombia), para. 660, approved by the Governing Body in November 1988).
9. 309. The Committee can only deplore the increase in anti-union violence documented by the complainants and noted in relation to the population in general in the Philippines Senate Report. The Committee therefore presses the Government to do all in its power to curb criminality by certain members of the police and armed forces and to adopt vigorous measures to dismantle the vigilante groups. This is, in fact, the first specific recommendation listed by the Philippines Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its March 1988 report.

Z. ANNEX

• UNIONISTS ALLEGEDLY MASSACRED ON 22 JANUARY 1987
• Name/age Factory/employer/union organisation
  1. 1 Bernardo Laguindanum (27) Pilsyn/Laguna City/OLALIA
  2. 2 Angelito Guitierrez (21) San Miguel Corp./NDP
  3. 3 Danilo Arjon (31) Rural Worker/ADLO
  4. 4 Rodrigo Grampa (25) Peking Foam/Malabon District
  5. 5 Vicente Campomanes (32) "
  6. 6 Leopoldo Alonzo (30) "