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.

Close to the heart

Fairly recently the Philippine Air Lines employees staged a strike and paralyzed tens of flights in several of the country’s terminals.  I have always taken flights on PAL since I was a young kid.  I still have to try the feel of flying in a different airline.  But for all of my forty odd years in this planet and counting, there was never one occasion when I was stranded like the passengers that were affected by the PAL employees’ strike. Still, my heart bled for all the poor passengers who missed their schedules, suffered the agony of being trapped inside their planes and at the airport, unable to fight their sad plight.

It’s just that the old and rustic PAL is really close to the heart. I will miss flying if ever as Mr. by Boo Chanco of Philippine Star says in his article “Is PAL worth saving?” —

Maybe PAL should just be allowed to fly into the sunset the same way that the proud PanAM, the international flag carrier of the United States for many years, was allowed to fade away when the economics of that airline no longer made sense. With its shaky finances and now, its damaged brand reputation due to labor problems, there may no other choice.

That September day was a truly bad day for the employees themselves, the local and foreign passengers, the airline company and by association, the Filipino people as a whole since the airline in question is the country’s flag carrier no less.

In my work in both fields of finance and the security industries, I have come face to face with a large number of distraught humans who could not take their flight due to sudden, unavoidable circumstances.  One most memorable was during the Mt. Pinatubo explosion in 1991. Hundreds of commuters at the domestic and international airports were sent back due to cancelled flights.  I remember a Japanese guest at the five star hotel where I worked, beckoned me during rounds accompanied by a hotel detective and asked for bottled water and even just P10.00 cash, whatever for he was supposed to use it on.  The guest said he and his wife no longer had any cash left after being stranded several days in the Philippines.

I cannot recalled the name of the Japanese guest but in that same hotel alone, my experience with him was replicated hundreds of times with the other local, but mostly the foreign guests. (I guess our kababayans are really just masyadong mas mahiyain than their foreign counterparts, yes?)

To top it all, that protest on that bleak day of September 27 by the members of the PAL employees association coincided with the raging typhoon Pedring with a trailing tropical storm Quiel at its back. Such a really sordid twist.  At the onset, all I was thinking was that the cancellations were due to inclement weather. Sadly it was not.

If PAL were Sulpicio Lines, one could just imagine the relief of the passengers that the airline cancelled its flights.

But PAL has world class employees and pilots and assistant or understudy pilots. It was the strike of the world class personnel that kept the airline’s jets from flying. Fortunately, the incident appears to be isolated. It does not seem that it has something to do with movements that have political color. Or is there some nuance of color in that strike? In the same way that the Bangkok strike paralyzed the government instead of just the airport? This one really keeps me thinking hard.

The big issue behind all the brouhaha is the plan to outsource the personnel of PAL and this is something that the employees of the former government owned organization vehemently reject.

Possibly, their thinking is that without being in the regular plantilla of the airline, they are in danger of being removed at will by PAL. And so they began their round of protests and whipped it up with a huge main event that crippled nearly all the flights of the flag carrier on September.

By and large, the PALEA and their apologists would be justifying their actions, but I personally cannot agree to the wisdom of that strike.  Unless of course, there was and really is a higher purpose to it, the employees simply hammered the last nail in the coffin.

As to whose coffin that was, we can only guess. But as things appear, the Supreme Court did not side with the PALEA and their affiliate organization, the FASAP over the legal issues on the dismissal of the PAL employees. It was a big blow to the struggle of the mutinous airline employees.

Another Philippine Star columnist says that PAL owner, Mr. Lucio Tan, must have bought the Philippines just because selected Supreme Court rulings favored the group of companies of Tan.  What hogwash!

Perhaps the serious lack of acceptance and understanding of the economics and finance of PAL could really lead to more problems for the airline.  Look at how a lot of grandstanding personalities and politicians are quick to hit at the Supreme Court over the decision disfavoring the PAL employees — we will write more about this in the days to come.

According to a retired former bureau chief of a foreign news daily, a compromise agenda that PAL employees or the FASAP can hammer on is to form their own manpower agency, to engage in manpower supply themselves.  This and many other less adversarial nor confrontational tactics and strategies could certainly be a more positive and healthy move.

It is also written on the wall, that whatever the plight of our country’s private enterprise could worsen in the coming year so there will always be a lose-lose situation instead of a win-win scenario in the near future.  What a waste!

Meanwhile, because of a low tolerance between the parties in the dispute, there will be no resolution and the ultimate outcome might not be good for our taste buds at all.

If the PAL employees can come up with truly constructive demands and fight for them at the negotiating table, it is likely that there will be no need to suffer innocent consumers to prove the point that the end justifies the means, even if the end appears to be wrong.  But if there were really a higher purpose to it all, only the protesting employees, their families and the riding public preferring PAL like I do, have a lot to lose.

And that’s why this issue is really close to the heart.