SC strikes out 'discriminatory' provision in Migrant Workers law

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has declared as unconstitutional a provision in the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act that limits the money claims of illegally dismissed overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). Ruled as unconstitutional was paragraph 5, Section 10 of Republic Act 8042, which states that in case of unjust termination of overseas employment, the worker is entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract “or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less." In a landmark decision, the SC said the clause “or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" violates Section 1, Article III of the Constitution and Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector. Section 1 of the Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law." On the other hand, Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accords all members of the labor sector full protection of their rights and welfare. According to the SC, the enactment of the assailed clause in RA 8042 introduced a “differentiated rule of computation of the money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment periods." “Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially neutral, for it applies to all OFWs. However, a closer examination reveals that the subject clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on OFWs… with employment contracts of less than one year vis-à-vis OFWs with employment contracts of one year or more, or those among OFWs with employment contracts or more than one year and OFWs vis-à-vis local workers with fixed period employment," the Court held. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez and was concurred by all SC magistrates, although Justices Antonio Carpio and Arturo Brion wrote separate concurring opinions. Carpio, in his separate opinion, said the assailed provision is “unduly oppressive, unreasonable and repugnant to the Constitution" and an “invalid exercise of police power" over the OFWs. He noted that the subject clause is the reverse of the constitutional mandate of RA 8042 to uphold the dignity of Filipino migrant workers, protect overseas labor and promote full employment opportunities. “Instead of protecting the rights and promoting the welfare of OFWs, the assailed paragraph unreasonably curtails their freedom to enter into employment contracts; instead of empowering OFWs, it prevents them from bargaining for better terms; instead of setting the minimum amount that OFWs are entitled to in case they are terminated without just, valid or authorized cause, it provides a ceiling; instead of allowing OFWs who have been terminated without just, valid or authorized cause to recover what is rightfully due it, it arbitrarily sets the recoverable amount to their three-month salary," he said. The ruling stemmed from a case filed Filipino seaman Antonio Serrano questioning the validity of the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of the law, which he said violated his constitutional right for equal protection and due process. Serrano was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd as Chief Officer for 12 months with a basic monthly pay of US$1,400. On the day of his departure on March 19, 1998 respondent downgraded Serrano’s employment contract to second officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000, which Serrano was forced to accept with the assurance that he would be made chief officer by the end of April 1998. Respondents failed on their promise and Serrano, who refused to stay on as second officer, was repatriated on May 26, 1998. Serrano filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against respondent with the Labor Arbiter and demanded payment for the unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days of his contract in the total amount of US$26,442.73 having only served two months and seven days when he was repatriated. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Serrano’s favor and ordered respondent to pay Serrano US$8,770 representing only three months of the unexpired portion of his contract. The National Labor Relations Commission upheld the arbiter’s findings of illegal dismissal but modified Serrano's claim to only US$4,669. While the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the NLRC on the reduction of salary rate it evaded the constitutionality issue raised by Serrano on the offending clause. The SC also modified the decision of the CA directing respondents to pay Serrano “his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract consisting of nine months and 23 days computed at the rate of US$1,400 per month." - GMANews.TV