Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 222, Mars 1983

1. 276. By a communication dated 17 September 1982, the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in the Philippines. The Government sent its reply in communications dated 26 October 1982 and 9 February 1983.
2. 277. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 278. In its communication of 17 September 1982, the WFTU alleges a wave of repression being carried out by the Philippine Government against the country's trade unionists, in particular the arrest on 2 September 1982 of Mr. Bonifacio Tupaz, Secretary-General of the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services and a member of the General Council of the WFTU. According to the WFTU, his arrest prevented him from attending, as member of a WFTU delegation, the Eighth Session of the UN Commission of Transnational Organisations which took place in Manila from 30 August to 10 September 1982. Despite a number of steps taken by the WFTU, Mr. Tupaz was not liberated. The WFTU requests the ILO to intervene forcefully with the Philippines Government to ensure the immediate release of this trade union leader.

B. The Government's reply

1. 279. In its communication of 26 October 1982, the Government states that Mr. Tupaz was arrested and has been detained since 1 September 1982 by virtue of a Presidential Commitment Order, not for legitimate trade union activities but for alleged criminal acts of conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection punishable under article 136 of the revised Penal Code of the Philippines. According to the Government, immediately after his arrest a preliminary investigation of the charge was conducted by the prosecutor during which Mr. Tupaz - assisted by counsel - was given the opportunity to reply to the evidence against him and did in fact submit his counter-affidavit. On the basis of this investigation, the prosecutor recommended the filing of criminal case No. Q-21741 before the Court of First Instance of Quezon city.
2. 280. The Government states that it appears that Mr. Tupaz is the Vice-Chairman and current Secretary-General of the Pagkakaisa Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PMP) which is not a registered labour organisation. According to the Government, the PMP has in fact been identified by intelligence groups as one of the fronts for the communist party and allegedly had been directed by that party to stage general strikes and other mass actions and demonstrations throughout the country last September in co-ordination with armed units of the communist party. The Government states that intelligence groups have seized documents proving this involvement and emphasises that if this action against Mr. Tupaz had not been taken the country would have been plunged into a bloody confrontation at the very time when its President was abroad on an official visit. The Government points out that the criminal acts with which Mr. Tupaz is now charged no longer enjoy the privilege of habeas corpus in virtue of Proclamation No. 2045 of 17 January 1981 which lifted Martial Law Proclamation No. 1081. The writ of habeas corpus remains suspended, explains the Government, because the rebellion in response to which martial law was originally introduced has not been entirely quelled and abated. The Government states that Mr. Tupaz filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, which the Government contested.
3. 281. Lastly, the Government states that the commitment order is not without any basis in view of the fact that legitimate labour leaders of the labour movement in the Philippines have acknowledged communist and subversive infiltration of the labour movement. The Government quotes certain statements allegedly made by the President of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP). The Government states that this indicates clearly that the arrest and detention of Mr. Tupaz, along with other labour leaders such as Messrs. Olalia, Sr. and Crispin Beltran, are not related to their trade union activities. It explains that Mr. Olalia's union, the National Federation of Labour Unions (NAFLU) during his detention, has filed six strike notices and three petitions for certification elections with the Ministry of Labour. It has also concluded two collective bargaining agreements, copies of which were sent to Mr. Olalia for signature and attestation. It adds that Mr. Tupaz's union has, during his detention, declared two strikes, filed two petitions for certification elections and has concluded six collective bargaining agreements. According to the Government this proves the care with which the Philippines Government acts in response to the communist threat to its very existence and demonstrates its adherence to the constitutional mandate of giving protection to labour.
4. 282. In its communication of 9 February 1983, the Government states that the criminal case (No. Q-21741) filed against Mr. Tupaz and the criminal cases against another trade unionist are presently being tried on the merits before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. It also points out that the petitions for the issuance of writs of habeas corpus filed with the Supreme Court by Mr. Tupaz and another trade unionist questioning the legality of their arrest and detention, have been submitted for decision.

C. The conclusions of the Committee

1. 283. The Committee notes that in this case, although the arrest and detention of a trade union leader alleged by the complainant is not denied by the Government, both parties give contradictory reasons for this arrest. On the one hand, the committee notes that according to the complainant Mr. Tupaz was arrested because of his trade union connections, whereas the Government, on the other hand, claims that he was arrested for criminal acts of conspiracy to commit a rebellion and insurrection punishable under the Penal Code.
2. 284. The Committee regrets that the complainant, despite an invitation to submit additional information in support of its allegations, has not substantiated its claim that the arrest was connected with trade union activities. On the other hand, the Government, for its part, has not provided specific information as to the type of activities committed by Mr. Tupaz that are said to constitute the acts of conspiracy with which he has been charged under the Penal Code. Faced with this paucity of precise information, the Committee can do no more than draw 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.,
3. 285. The Committee notes that the criminal cases concerning the trade union leaders in question are presently being tried before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City and that their petitions for writs of habeas corpus will be heard by the supreme court. The Committee would, accordingly, request the Government to transmit, as soon as possible, information concerning the detailed charges that have been brought against Mr. Tupaz, as well as information on the further developments that take place in the trial against him.