Church and Law
Early this year, in April 2011, Bishop Broderick Pabillo, D.D., Chair, Church-Labor Conference (CLC) together with the members of CLC, released a statement favoring the PALEA in the PAL-PALEA conflict.
His Excellency Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III, and his Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, openly supported the decision of the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) to outsource its operations.
PALEA protests the move of PAL and vehemently state their objection to outsourcing and contractualization of PAL’s workers, something that should have been done hundreds of years ago – other airlines having outsourced most of their operations even from the beginning.
According to the Church, the outsourcing called for by PAL, “will set aside the rights of more than 2,600 workers. These workers, together with their families and support groups, placed high hopes in voting for a new President. The new President branded these people as “Kayo ang Boss ko” in his inaugural speech. “Ang Daang Matuwid means job security…a real job means stable jobs for all Filipinos.” If the government is sincere in its promises to the people, it has to have a sound job employment program and policy for the Filipinos promoting decent and sustainable jobs instead of promoting contractualization. The Government should GIVE PRIORITY TO LABOR OVER CAPITAL.”
“We in the Church Labor Conference also support this planned strike. We will take necessary actions in unison with PALEA until the planned outsourcing of three “non-core” departments of PAL that will result to retrenchment of more than 2,600 regular employees be declared illegal and inhuman.
“We call the attention of President Benigno Aquino, Jr. to review and reverse his decision and prove that his government is pro-poor, pro-people and sincere in its battle cry for Daang Matuwid. Give the favor to the working people and stop contractualization!”
Recently, the clamor against the Supreme Court’s October 14, 2011 recall of the final decision (made September 7 of this year) done in favor of FASAP (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) has subsided. Nevertheless, there are still people that persist in vilifying Supreme Court (and Philippine Air Lines) for what they deem to be a denial of justice. Allegations of bribery and justice-for-sale abound. It should be said, of course, that the timing was unfortunate, especially considering that the original cause (PAL layoffs) occurred way back in 1998. But does this in any way invalidate the recall decision? In a word, no.
The reason that the Supreme Court made the recall in the first place was because the September decision was handed down by the high court’s Second Division when the Special Third Division was the one to actually handle the case. Why this happened is another topic altogether, but it does not alter the fact.
Some see this as a mere technicality, but if SC didn’t make the call it would be guilty of not following proper procedure. This is absurd as the high court is supposedly the last bastion of the law in the land, and following correct procedure strictly to the letter is among the tenets of law.
The point of having an established and approved way of doing things is to ensure efficiency and fairness. This is especially significant in the SC reversal of its original decision. If the law provides that this case should be handled by a certain group or division, then that is the way it should happen and for no other reason. Besides, what would be the purpose of having different divisions, if these were basically homogenous and each one was as good as the next? Furthermore, the reversal is not final, since the appropriate division and then the SC en banc will decide on the fate of the PALEA members’ dismissal with finality.
The rule of law is all-encompassing; individuals are not granted the right to pick and choose which particular aspect to follow. The alternative, naturally, would be recourse to emotion, in which we would come up with decisions not based on the facts or evidence, but by what we felt was right. Emotions are easily swayed given the right impetus, thus chaos would follow soon after. That is certainly not the best situation for any country to be, especially considering the current state of this country at the present time.
At this point, it is significant to note that the recall does not automatically mean the decision of the Second Division will not entirely be changed by the Special Third Division. Proper procedure will be followed, and justice will finally be served.
On the other hand, the Church can rest easy that the rights of the PAL employees will be protected. That voting by the PALEA members for the incumbent President was not in vain. Indeed, the PALEA members may be part of the Church’s flock, yet they are also the same flock of the state. They are also obliged to follow the rule of law.
Also as an afterthought, it needs to be said that while the Church has championed a worthwhile cause – the defense of PALEA against its employer, PAL – there is a caveat that such exercise of mediation should also take into consideration: objectivity, fairness and justice.
First, the employees of PAL do not necessarily fall under the Church’s advocacy for a “government (that) is pro-poor, pro-people and sincere in its battle cry for Daang Matuwid.” The PALEA members are part of the people, indeed, but they are far from being poor.
A simple baggage handler with about 20 years of service receives a basic pay of 20,000 pesos, with various perks such as free hospitalization, sick leave, vacation leave and a trip pass for the employee and his family.
If the simple baggage handler accepts the separation package, she or he will get about 2.4 million pesos separation pay. That’s a lot for Christmas, New Year, Valentines’ Day and Graduation expenses for a child in college or lower grade in the coming year, 2012. The money can also earn a profit if invested wisely in a good enterprise.
At the end of the day, whether the SC decides in favor of PAL or else in favor of the PALEA, PAL is and always will be ready to compensate its employees generously once its outsourcing will get under way.
Por delicadeza, I know of a lot of people that were politically accommodated during the time of the former Pres. Ferdinand Marcos. They left PAL during the time of the late Pres. Corazon Aquino to join other airlines. I have not heard about the politically endorsed appointees at PAL after Marcos but it seems they have stayed on, later to lead in filing a case against their employer after being asked to end their stay.
Shout to Space