Nothing new about the AntiContractualization Law
The new Security of Tenure Bill, which the Lower House passed on Wednesday can be described very briefly: it declares as labor-only contractor (which is unlawful) those contractors, agencies, and cooperatives found guilty of any of the following acts: supplying workers to companies to do regular functions or activities that are directly related to the principal employers’ usual business or trade, and those contractors that do not have sufficient capitalization or investment in tools, equipment, machineries, and work premises, as well as those where the principal employers exercise control over the contractors’ employees.
The proponents claim the legislation is a victory for the working class. I disagree. All the features of this bill are already provided for under Article 106 of the Labor Code, as amended, and as implemented under the DOLE’s Department Order no 174, which amended DO 18-A. There is what are being claimed as a milestone legislative protection to the workers’ constitutional right to security of tenure are nothing new. These provisions have been there since martial law, when the Labor Code was promulgated on May 1, 1974 and took effect six months later. I should know, I was one of the Ople boys who drafted the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.
The promise of President Duterte to abolish “endo” or “5-5-5” has already been fulfilled. But abolishing contractualization cannot be implemented. It requires an abrogation of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing that “no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due-process of law.” To deny the employers the right to enter into fair and reasonable contracts would deprive them of their right over their property and business. We also need to amend the Civil Code recognizing valid and just contracts as binding between parties.
Also, to prevent employers from entering into project employment and fixed-term employment contravenes the Civil Code, and violates the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the rights of private enterprises to reasonable returns on their investments, and the management’s rights to grow and expand their business operations. Such an illadvised move would also deprive employers of their management prerogatives. Above all, from the business and economic points of view, it will destroy the Philippines’ ability to compete in ASEAN and the global economic arena, drive away investors, and worsen unemployment problems.
If Congress keeps driving away investors, then we shall all be pushing our labor force to migrate abroad for jobs and livelihood. We all know outward labor migration weakens the family as a basic unit of the nation, and thus is bad for our country and people.