Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2009, Publication : 98ème session CIT (2009)

A Government representative expressed regret for the delay in the submission of the Government’s replies on Convention No. 87. The reply was submitted on 1 June 2009, and the delay was due to the considerable time devoted to conducting consultations with the concerned government agencies and the social partners. The consultation took into account matters raised in the 2009 report of the Committee of Experts, which included the request for the Government to accept a high-level ILO mission to obtain a better understanding of all aspects of the case. The consultation yielded positive results. The Government decided to accept the ILO mission as soon as possible.

The Government welcomed the mission at this opportune time, after the tripartite partners had adopted the Philippine Decent Work Common Agenda 2008–10 with the theme “Narrowing decent work deficits”, with the assistance of the ILO Subregional Office. Under Strategic Objective No. 1, there were 13 items on rights at work that the Government and the social partners agreed to pursue to strengthen compliance with ratified Conventions, especially the eight core Conventions. One item was the labour law reforms with the objective of evolving an overall tripartite position on proposed legislation that would bring the national law into conformity with the Convention. Initially, the project entailed review and formulation of a common trade union position on possible amendments to the Labour Code provisions, particularly articles 234(c), 269, 272(b), 263(g), 264(a), 272(a), 237(a) and 270, referred to by the Committee of Experts in its report. Referring to article 263(g), the Government representative indicated that there were already four Bills undergoing committee hearings in both Houses of Congress: Senate Bills Nos 159 and 606 and House Bills Nos 2112 and 1717, which limited the authority of the Secretary of Labour to specific sectors in the economy. The project was enrolled by the Workers’ group through the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). Relating to the reduction of the 30 per cent membership requirement for registration of public sector unions and their full representation on the Public Sector Labour Management Council (PSLMC), the Government had scheduled the review and possible amendment of Executive Order No. 180, and the worker members of the Council were commencing a forum on decent work in the public sector.

On issues relating to the Labour Standard Enforcement Framework formulated in consultation with the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO Subregional Office, the tripartite partners were going to a labour inspection audit in July 2009, in a collaborative effort based on the request of the Government to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and governance of the labour inspection system. Also, the worker members of the Council, through the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), would conduct research on the modalities of labour standards enforcement to make the framework more responsive to the emerging needs of workers, and for better implementation of the labour standards enforcement system. Additionally, the worker members of the Council would conduct capacity-building activities to fully equip workers and their organizations with the technical knowledge and skills to enhance their participation in the enforcement of labour standards. The employer members of the Council would help establishments to strengthen compliance with labour standards through training and deployment of social compliance assessors using SA 8000 on social accountability.

With reference to the alleged restrictions on workers’ rights and the intervention of the police and the military in labour disputes, especially inside export processing and special economic zones, the Government had a continuing labour–management education programme on employer and labour relations with culture orientation for expatriates and workers. Also, the TUCP offered distance education on the fundamental principles and rights at work to increase awareness and capacity of the workers, trade unions and workers’ support groups on the effective exercise of their fundamental labour rights. The employer members of the Council were also implementing a rights-based approach to global competitiveness through the promotion of fundamental principles and rights at work, in line with the principle of corporate social responsibility.

Other measures included the review, in consultation with the social partners, of the joint guidelines on the conduct of the Philippine National Police personnel, security guards and private company guards during strikes, pickets and lock-outs, to facilitate better implementation. The guidelines defined the role of the Department of Labour and Employment and the police and set strict conditions on the involvement of the military in labour disputes. The Memorandum of Social Understanding on Labour and Social Issues Arising Out of the Activities of Multinational Enterprises/Foreign Direct Investments had also been due for review. The Memorandum reaffirmed a commitment to observing the principles of the ILO core Conventions and respect of the right of workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining. In pursuit of tripartism and social dialogue, a series of forums had been conducted for a broad range of members of society. The objective had been to raise awareness on the role of international labour standards and decent work already integrated into the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2004–10, with a view to mainstreaming decent work in government policies, plans and programmes, and ensure more effective implementation.

With regard to cases of alleged extrajudicial killings involving trade unionists, the Government welcomed the opportunity for the high-level ILO mission to have direct contacts with the complainants and the competent authorities concerned. This would enable the mission to have a better appreciation and understanding of the case and to recommend appropriate measures to ensure the fair and rapid investigation, prosecution and conviction of the violators.

The Philippines had demonstrated, through a long history of harmonious cooperation with the ILO, the shared goal and strong commitment to securing decent work for all Filipinos under conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity. Such commitment was also shared by the social partners, as reaffirmed in the joint statement on the implementation of the Philippine Decent Work Agenda 2008-2010, in which they declared they would uphold their commitment to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, respect and promote freedom of association, recognize the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of forced labour, the elimination of child labour and the elimination of discrimination with respect to employment and occupation. They recognized the immediate need to address the decent work deficits in the country and agreed that the third cycle of the Philippine Decent Work Common Agenda should be participatory, results-based, impact-oriented and with clear accountabilities. They adopted the theme “Narrowing decent work deficits” for our common agenda to embody the aspirations of enhancing opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity. They also agreed that the Decent Work Common Agenda represented their point of convergence as their activities contributed towards the common goal of reducing decent work gaps by enhancing workforce productivity, competitiveness, representation and equity at work.

It should also be noted that on the occasion of the ILO’s 90th anniversary celebrations, the President of the Philippines had taken the opportunity to renew this commitment when issuing Proclamation No. 1752 declaring 21 April to 1 May 2009 as ILO week. The Government representative assured the Committee that the Government would extend all its support and assistance to ensure the success of the high-level mission to the Philippines. She also hoped that the information provided by the Government would be useful to the high-level mission in carrying out its mandate.

The Worker members emphasized the numerous violations of the Convention that had been occurring for many years. The violations consisted of acts of violence against trade unionists and other activists, including murders, assassination attempts, abductions and acts of torture. These multiple violations had already been denounced on many occasions by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. This year, however, the Government had not submitted a report and had just provided oral explanations several months late, repeating information that had been provided previously. It had referred to: the establishment in 2007 of the Melo Commission, an independent body responsible for examining the murders of journalists and activists; the monitoring of the establishment of special regional tribunals; the establishment of a special unit within the national police; the organization in 2007 by the Supreme Court of a consultative summit on extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances; and the establishment of a so-called “amparo” procedure for the protection of constitutional rights.

These measures, however, had not resulted in much progress in practice. New summary executions had taken place in 2007 and 2008, raising to 87 the number of trade unionists killed since 2001. Between July 2007 and August 2008, five trade union leaders had been murdered and three abducted. Others had been intimidated and threatened, or placed on blacklists available on the Internet. Demonstrations were still violently dispersed and work relations had become increasingly militarized in export processing and special economic zones, as the Committee would realize when it heard the testimonies on this subject. The hundreds of acts of violence were not giving rise to investigations or convictions, as in the past five years only two cases had led to the prosecution of four suspects, none of which related to anti-union acts.

The high-level mission proposed by the Committee in 2007 had only just been accepted by the Government. This was to be welcomed as the situation had not really changed. This had just been confirmed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur in a recent report indicating a decline in extrajudicial killings, but also many cases of impunity. According to this report, the most serious shortcoming was the Government’s failure to institutionalize or implement the many reforms that had been recommended. In the absence of these measures, any progress made remained fragile and easily reversible.

Finally, a number of other problems of a legal nature remained. The Human Security Act defined terrorism in vague terms as an act that caused “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace”. In 2007, the Committee had asked for clarifications on the impact this Act had on the application of the Convention, to which no reply had as yet been provided. Furthermore, for several years, the Committee of Experts had been calling for amendments to the provisions of the Labour Code, which required that, for registration, trade unions should provide a list of all their members, and that their membership comprised at least 20 per cent of the employees in the enterprise concerned. In 2007, the Government had indicated that the Labour Code had been amended, but it had not yet been able to provide the text of the amendment concerned. Other amendments to the Labour Code were required in order to: limit compulsory arbitration to essential services in the strict sense of the term; review the penalties for participation in a strike considered illegal; lower the excessively high number of trade unions (ten) required to establish federations or confederations; and not to make foreign assistance to trade unions subject to the prior authorization of a minister or secretary of state.

In addition to legislative measures and acts of violence, certain economic measures, such as the excessive use of contractual workers through outsourcing, could also be used to undermine the trade union movement. These mechanisms were in themselves prohibitive, as the workers who were “contracted” for a maximum period of five months could not dream of joining a union if they wished to keep their jobs and their income. This was an apparently innocent practice that had become a particularly effective means of controlling the trade union movement and of circumventing in practice the application of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Convention.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the information provided. However, they expressed surprise that she had not spent more time on the issue of impunity and the arrests and harassment of trade unionists, which accounted for over half of the observation of the Committee of Experts. They also missed the determination on the part of the Government to ensure that the situation started to move. They recalled that it had taken two years to accept the high-level mission. It was the view of the Employer members that the high-level mission needed to cover certain fundamental aspects of the case if progress were to be made in addressing the issue of compliance with the Convention in law and practice and of impunity. Without going into the details of the case, which had been reviewed very thoroughly by the Worker members, they noted the explanations provided for the delay in replying to the observation of the Committee of Experts, as well as the very positive development of the enhanced consultation with the social partners for the preparation of the report, on which the Government was to be commended. However, the problems were more basic than the adoption of a Decent Work Agenda, as they went to the heart of the issue of freedom of association. The Committee’s conclusions therefore needed to emphasize the gravity of the situation of impunity and to reaffirm the urgent need to take action in order to tackle the long-standing problems that hindered the implementation of the Convention both in law and practice. In conclusion, they recalled that Convention No. 87 was not a promotional instrument, but set out minimum standards to which effect needed to be given upon ratification.

The Government member of the United States remained very concerned at the situation of workers’ rights, including freedom of association, in the Philippines, particularly in light of the ongoing review of the Philippines’ status as a beneficiary country under the United States’ Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). A key concern highlighted by the petition requesting the review of the Philippines’ GSP status had been the Government’s reluctance to accept an ILO high-level mission, as had been requested by the Conference Committee in 2007, to visit the country and assess all aspects of the application by the Philippines of Convention No. 87. She was very pleased to learn that the Government had recently decided to receive such a mission. The issues that were being examined by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association were serious and long-standing. With respect to violations of the civil liberties of trade union members and leaders, they were also well documented. She urged the Government to cooperate fully with the ILO and take the necessary steps to implement the recommendations that would be generated by ILO technical assistance.

The Worker member of the Philippines commended the Government for accepting the high-level mission to look into allegations and reported violations of trade union rights, including killings, attempted murders, death threats, abductions, disappearances, assaults, torture, military interference in trade union activities, violent police dispersion of marches and pickets, arrests of trade union leaders in connection with their activities, and widespread impunity for the authors of such acts. Through its acceptance of the high-level mission, following tripartite consultation, the Government was demonstrating its commitment to ILO processes. The mission would undoubtedly serve as the most appropriate forum for those who had complaints to be heard and to substantiate their claims and allegations. The members of the high-level mission would be able to observe, investigate and verify the situation so that the truth could prevail.

He condemned every case of extrajudicial killing, whether it was committed by the armed forces of duly constituted governments, armed rebel forces or criminal elements. He therefore called upon the Government to mobilize its resources to pursue the investigation and prosecution of those responsible. He emphasized that extrajudicial killings created an environment of fear that was not conducive to the exercise of civil rights and liberties or freedom of association. They eroded the foundations of the global and national institutions upon which social justice depended.

He expressed confidence that the high-level mission was not intended to find fault or ascertain guilt, but rather to explore the immediate and remote causes of the situation in an objective manner and to develop appropriate responses through technical cooperation to help the country fulfil its obligations and also to suggest concrete steps and practical ways in which the ILO and the social partners could combat extrajudicial killings.

With reference to the repeated requests by the ILO supervisory bodies to align the Labour Code with the respective Conventions, he noted that the country had adopted the Philippine Decent Work Common Agenda 2008–10 with the theme of “Narrowing decent work deficits”, which included a trade union programme for the review and reform of the Labour Code led by the FFW and assisted by the ILO subregional office in Manila and ILO ACTRAV. The programme had provided a venue for the various trade union organizations to reach common ground on the approach to be adopted to the adaptation of the Labour Code and the promotion of the principles of freedom of association in the country. The first phase of the programme had recently been completed, consisting of a number of regional consultations attended by over 250 trade union leaders from the private and public sectors representing over 40 labour federations and workers’ alliances. They had discussed reforms in the areas of promoting trade unionism, collective bargaining and the right to strike and combating the harmful effects of flexible employment arrangements on fundamental principles and rights at work. Based on the reports and observations of the ILO supervisory bodies, they had also served to discuss pending legislative bills proposed by certain trade union organizations to strengthen the constitutional rights of workers to organize, collective bargaining, the right to strike and employment protection. Significant dialogue would also be held to engage the social partners, including employers, workers, the Government and civil society at large, in the process of review and reform.

He explained that the next step would be to synthesize the findings and recommendations of the regional consultations and to ensure the mainstreaming of the gender dimension in the recommendations, on the basis of which the participating trade unions would propose legislative measures to remove the offending legislative provisions, and push for other measures to regain the two lost decades of organizing workers to achieve social justice and peace.

Meanwhile, with regard to the reiterated requests of the ILO supervisory bodies to amend article 234(f) of the Labour Code, which required the submission of all the names of an organization comprising at least 20 per cent of all employees in the bargaining unit where it sought to operate, he indicated that with the adoption of the Republic Act No. 9481, this requirement had already been removed. Similarly, concerning the indiscriminate exercise of the power to assume jurisdiction over labour disputes set out in article 263(g), he recalled that the Government representative had indicated to the Conference Committee in 2007 that the Government agreed to limit the exercise of assumption of jurisdiction to cases involving “essential services”, as defined by the ILO.

The programme adopted by the tripartite social partners followed another ILO-supported initiative to build the capacity of trade unionists on the use of international instruments and the supervisory system to create an enabling environment for trade unionism and collective bargaining. Those who had attended the training were now in the forefront of efforts to raise the awareness of the social partners, and particularly the workers, on the importance of international standards and the use of international supervisory mechanisms with a view to bringing the Labour Code into greater conformity with ILO standards. The experience in his country showed the importance of ILO technical cooperation in improving the implementation of international labour standards, particularly through the strengthening of social dialogue. He therefore hoped that the high-level mission would adopt a similar approach by combining fact-finding with concrete technical cooperation programmes to help solve the problems indicated by the supervisory bodies.

The Employer member of the Philippines supported the Government’s decision to accept the high-level mission requested by the Conference Committee to obtain a better understanding of the situation concerning extrajudicial killings, and other acts against trade unionists. He described some of the initiatives and activities that were taken by the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) to ensure the full implementation of Convention No. 87 and the other fundamental Conventions. He recalled that the third cycle of the Decent Work Common Agenda had recently been launched. He noted that this had been the result of tripartite initiatives, in which organized labour and the employers, represented by ECOP, had found common ground in promoting and implementing the Decent Work Action Plan. This was a sign of the success of social dialogue in the country. However, full implementation of the National Action Plan remained a daunting challenge in view of the scarcity of government resources, the chronic unemployment and underemployment, which were exacerbated by the 2.36 per cent annual population growth rate that had eliminated the otherwise positive effects of the country’s annual economic growth. Although the contributions made by the Government and the social partners to reducing decent work deficits were too numerous to enumerate, their collective activities had served to develop strategies for the implementation of the National Action Plan for Decent Work for the benefit of the country. Moreover, ILO technical assistance and sustained support would be necessary to reduce the deficit.

He added that social dialogue had become the lynchpin of industrial democracy in the country. Bipartism and tripartism had contributed to the statutory recognition and acceptance of social dialogue as a vital tool for the achievement of industrial peace. He recalled that the country had been affected by a series of debilitating strikes induced by the political and economic crises in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, the social partners had taken it upon themselves to help resolve the worsening problem, by concluding an agreement under which the employers reaffirmed their respect for workers’ fundamental rights. The workers, in turn, had undertaken to exercise their rights within the rule of law and the established rules of industrial relations. The timely intervention by the social partners had preserved industrial stability and helped to prevent labour and social policy conflicts. It had also enabled the country to minimize the effects of liberalization and acquire the necessary resilience to withstand the effects of the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the present global crisis. Accordingly, social dialogue had helped to save jobs and had ensured the survival of enterprises. It allowed for collaboration between workers and employers in peace and harmony.

The Worker member of the United States emphasized the fundamental importance of the right of workers, as set out in the Convention, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization, and the duty of the Government to refrain from any interference whatsoever which would restrict or impede this right. However, despite these protections, many unions in the Philippines, when organizing or exercising their right to freedom of association, were subjected to government interference intended to instil fear and erode support for unions. Unions of which the agencies of the Government, and particularly the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), did not approve, were often dismantled. The impact of these anti-union activities was that there was a climate of impunity for human rights abusers, resulting in killings, abductions, torture, arbitrary arrests and a general state of fear for many union leaders in the country.

The AFP was the body responsible for conducting anti-union campaigns, which often began with the drawing up of lists of unionists deemed by the Government to be sympathizers of the internal insurgency led by the Communist New People’s Army (NPA). This was followed by anti-union campaigns and seminars intended to categorize listed trade union leaders and organizers, in particular those affiliated with the Kilusanag Mayo Uno (KMU), as “fronts” for insurgents and terrorists. Sometimes union leaders or their families were threatened with death or harm if they continued to work for a particular union. The AFP also sometimes established or supported civic organizations professing to be workers’ organizations and assisted them in conducting seminars in local villages to try and turn the local population against democratically elected unions. Unions were often accused, without evidence, of using union dues to fund the NPA. The military would visit the homes of union leaders to pressure them to resign from the union, refrain from organizing or asking for too much in contract negotiations and accepting what was offered by the company. Other unions had also experienced such harassment, including the Alliance of Progressive Labour (APL), the Buklaran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) and the Partido ng Manggagawang, Makabayan (PM). As the United Nations Special Rapporteur had indicated, the worst effect of the Government’s anti-union activities was the increased likelihood of murders, disappearances, threats and harassment of listed trade unionists. The 2008 report of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) had noted a resurgence of such acts of violence against activist groups and labour organizations and, according to the United States Department of State, the CHR suspected the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the AFP of a number of killings of leftist activists in rural areas. The CHR had also noted a shift in methods intended to silence civil society, with a significant drop in extrajudicial killings and an increase in arrests and enforced detentions. Trade unionists who were detained languished in jail without protection facing slow trials, therefore effectively being removed from their movement. This had led many workers to live in hiding.

In response to the Government’s claim that it was pursuing legitimate counter-insurgency tactics and that the military had been absolved by the Melo Commission, he claimed that the Government was in fact intentionally blurring the lines between armed insurgents and legitimate trade unions. However, he recalled the conclusion of the Melo Commission that only an organization with intelligence and coordination capacities would have been capable of carrying out such killings. He questioned the Government’s political will to stop the violence against trade unionists, particularly in view of its failure to investigate the involvement of General Palparan, now a member of Congress, in the killings, despite the fact that a 2008 Court of Appeal ruling had found evidence to be credible of his responsibility in the killings, as a minimum by virtue of “command responsibility”.

An observer representing the International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF) reported that his union, the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers’ Association (TMPCWA), had suffered serious anti-union discrimination and interference by the corporation. Although since 2001 the Committee on Freedom of Association had been recommending the reinstatement of the trade unionists and leaders who had been illegally dismissed, no effect had been given to the recommendation. His union had appealed to the OECD National Contact Point through its group of supporters in Japan, but with no results so far. Despite the clear rulings by the Supreme Court in 2003 and 2004 requiring the Toyota Company to negotiate a collective agreement with the TMPCWA, the company had not respected the ruling, concluding instead a bogus agreement with the “yellow union” it had created, which had been issued a registration certificate. He further alleged that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals were thwarting the Constitution in favour of the company’s interests and that the management was doing everything in its power to destroy the TMPCWA. Picket lines had been broken up by force, criminal charges fabricated against union members and even a striptease organized to draw workers away from union meetings. He reiterated the seriousness of the climate of violence against activists and trade unionists in the country and indicated that the placement of a detachment of the 202nd Infantry Brigade had been located very close to his union’s office, which had been subject to frequent visits and searches for the union leaders. As a union leader, he personally had to sleep every night in different places, as union leaders were under constant surveillance.

In conclusion, he appealed to the Committee to send a high-level mission to investigate the situation and to take all effective measures to compel the Government to fully recognize the TMPCWA, reinstate the illegally dismissed workers with full compensation and to fully respect freedom of association.

The Worker member of Australia noted that the violations of freedom of association in the Philippines had a severe impact on the capacity for workers to freely organize, form or join trade unions, run elections, certify unions, negotiate collective agreements and take up campaigns or seek legal redress for matters in dispute. Companies could be involved in standoffs with their democratically-elected trade union for years and the Department of Labour’s (DOLE) own statistics said that a mere 226,000 workers were covered by CBAs. She drew attention to the three most recent cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the infringement of workers’ rights brought by the International Metalworkers’ Federation concerning the situation referred to by the previous speaker, the International Union of Food Workers (IUF) on behalf of the NUWHRAIN Dusit Hotel workers, and the International Wiring Systems Workers’ Union in the Special Economic Zone in Northern Luzon.

She added that since the Conference Committee had last examined this case in 2007, the number of extrajudicial killings and disappearances of trade unionists had fallen. However, the very incidence of killings was a symptom of a bigger problem – that of the lack of criminal accountability and the ongoing existence of the environment that allowed these violations to happen. She therefore welcomed the fact that the Government had indicated its acceptance of an ILO high-level mission and emphasized that the mission would have to:

– first and foremost, consult the local trade unions that had raised the concerns with the ILO, including the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU);

– with regard to the role of the military in legal issues, look at the counter-insurgency policies of the Government and the armed forces, which had equated the militant unions with the insurgencies and were blurring the lines between illegal activities and legitimate trade union activities. This would include not only an examination of the assassination of trade union leaders and organizers, but also of other human rights violations and the impunity enjoyed by the military;

– examine the military’s efforts to establish anti-union education campaigns, especially in Mindanao and Luzon Provinces, and the role of the army’s Civil-Military Operations units;

– focus on the Government’s implementation of the recommendations and make contact with the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions in relation to trade unions and their ability to organize;

– examine the relationship between the Philippine Economic Zone Authority and the Department of Labor, which had, in practice, ceded authority for labour law implementation, as well as the key constraints to organizing in the Special Economic Zones, which had had a de facto no-union, no-strike policy in place for years. Local government units in and around the Special Economic Zones had been conducting anti-union education efforts, as well as intimidating those who sought to form unions. Union organizers were prohibited from entering Special Economic Zones and if workers were identified as being union organizers, they lost their jobs;

– examine the Assumption of Jurisdiction Statute 263(g), both for its scope (going beyond essential services) and implementation (some unions were prevented from calling strikes, while others were allowed to do so);

– examine the application of criminal law in industrial issues, criminal libel statutes and the use of criminal libel charges, sedition charges and other criminal charges aimed at unionists engaged in protected activities or to undermine union leadership;

– examine the implementation of the Labour Code, and especially that of the Republic Act No. 9481 (the union organizing bill), which appeared to favour organizing efforts by national federations over independent unions;

– examine the Government’s definition of what encompassed a strike or concerted action and engage in discussions with the Supreme Court and the legal justice system;

– examine and recommend measures to ensure that Filipino workers could enjoy security of tenure and the right to organize. It was common practice to illegally classify workers as “casual” or “contractual”, or to dismiss workers after six months and then to rehire them; and

– meet the full range of trade unions and acknowledge them all as key social partners.

She expressed the strong hope that the preparation and process of the mission would assist the Government and social partners to resolve the serious issues, improve compliance with the Convention and strengthen social dialogue for the benefit of the country.

The Government representative of the Philippines thanked the members of the Committee for their statements and welcomed the support expressed for the Government’s decision to accept a high-level mission with a view to gaining a better understanding of all the aspects of the case. She also noted the comments made concerning the Decent Work Common Agenda and the strength of the tripartism and social dialogue that had led to its adoption. The Common Agenda included an arrangement to monitor its implementation and would provide a basis for the provision of ILO support and assistance to the tripartite constituents to strengthen the application of international labour standards.

She added that she shared the valid and serious concerns raised in relation to cases of alleged extrajudicial killings involving trade unionists, to which reference had been made in the report of the Committee of Experts. In this respect, she indicated that the Human Security Act had been challenged before the Supreme Court, and had not therefore been implemented. She emphasized that cases of alleged extrajudicial killings were a very serious matter and had provided compelling grounds in the Government’s decision to accept the high-level mission, which would be able to undertake an independent and impartial examination of the case within the purview of the Convention. She expressed full trust and confidence in the independence, impartiality and high degree of competence of the high-level mission in carrying out its task. Finally, she reiterated her assurances of full support for the ILO mission.

The Worker members said that for years they had been denouncing the continued violations of the Convention in both law and practice. It was therefore appropriate to call once again for the Labour Code to be amended in accordance with the recommendations that had been made for several years by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts; as well as for detailed information on the effects of the Human Security Act on the application of the Convention and the levels of unionization in the export processing zones. The Government should also be urged to indicate the measures adopted to bring a definitive end to the climate of violence and impunity, and to ensure that murders, disappearances and other violations of the fundamental rights of trade unionists were rapidly investigated, prosecuted and punished. In order to encourage this approach, the Worker members welcomed with satisfaction the Government’s statement that it would accept an ILO high-level mission. This mission would have to investigate, together with the unions, the acts of violence against trade unionists; follow up all the cases under consideration by the Committee on Freedom of Association; examine the manner in which the Convention was being applied in the special economic zones; and ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, those of the United Nations Special Rapporteur and those of the Conference Committee, particularly in relation to impunity.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the very helpful statement. They indicated that the Committee’s conclusions would need to call for action to give full effect to the Convention in law and practice. They expressed the belief that the key to the achievement of progress in this case was the high-level mission, the objective of which needed to be broader than that proposed in the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2007, when the proposal of a mission had been made with a view to achieving better understanding of all aspects of the case. The high-level mission that had now been accepted by the Government needed to address and clarify all the shortcomings in the application of the Convention and identify the areas in which action needed to be taken. As it was doubtful whether the Government would be able to provide much new information in time for the next session of the Committee of Experts, the Employer members hoped that the next observation of the Committee of Experts would include the findings of the high-level mission and its appreciation of the situation, with a view to promoting action to achieve a tangible improvement in the situation.

On a more technical point, the Employer members recalled that the issue of EPZs was more closely related to the application of Convention No. 98, whereas it had been raised by the Committee of Experts under the present Convention.

In conclusion, they expressed the hope that, when working with the high-level mission, the Government would develop a timeframe for action to be taken to achieve the implementation of the Convention in both law and practice, particularly since the principal issues involved were long-standing problems. Although there might be slight differences of views on the situation between the Employer and Worker groups, they were in agreement on the fundamental elements of the case, and in particular on the need for effective implementation of the Convention in law and practice.