Press Release
January 15, 2009

SENATE TO PROBE MASS LEAVES

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a resolution calling for a Senate inquiry, in aid of legislation, to determine whether state prosecutors on mass leave incur criminal liability under the constitutional provision that any strike should accord with law.

"The law prohibits government employees from going on strike, no matter what term is used. Thus, even if the prosecutors claim that some of them will remain at work, those on mass leave incur administrative liability. The language of the law is absolute," she said.

Santiago said that the Constitution has a general provision that allows all workers of the public and private sectors to go on strike, but the strike must be "in accordance with law."

"In the case of government workers, the law consists of a 2002 resolution of the Civil Service Commission, which absolutely prohibits any mass action intended to disrupt public service, even if the disruption is temporary," she said.

The senator said that the prosecutors are trying to create a loophole in the law, which can only be tested by an action in the Supreme Court.

"The Solicitor General can file a petition for mandamus to compel the prosecutors to return to work. That would give the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule on whether it will continue with the long line of cases ruling that workers in the civil service have no right to strike or go on mass leave," she said.

Santiago filed the resolution after the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that on 14 January 2009, 76 of 95 public prosecutors in Central Luzon will go on simultaneous mass leaves lasting six days, from January 28 until February 4.

During this protest period, the spokesperson, a regional state prosecutor, said that at least 19 prosecutors, together with 117 DOJ staffers, "will work during the protest period so as not to disrupt services in the justice system";

"Congress has passed no law granting the right to strike to government employees. It would be illegal for prosecutors to go on strike, because it is prohibited by a 2002 resolution of the Civil Service Commission," she said.

Santiago referred to CSC Resolution No. 021316 entitled "Omnibus rules on prohibited concerted mass actions in the public sector."

The senator quoted CSC Resolution, Sec. 4, which provided that the right to self-organize accorded to government employees shall not carry with it "the right to engage in any form of prohibited concerted activity or mass action causing or intending to cause work stoppage or service disruption, albeit of temporary nature."

"Under the same CSC resolution, mass leaves are specifically prohibited," Santiago said.

The senator said that mass leaves would violate the rulings of the Supreme Court in the following cases: Toyota v. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 (2007); GSIS v. Kapisanan, 510 SCRA 622 (2006); Bangalisan v. CA, 276 SCRA 619 (1997); Manila Public School Teachers v. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323 (1991); Arizala v. CA, 189 SCRA 584 (990); and SSS Employees v. CA, 175 SCRA 686 (1989).

"Without the enabling law, these mass leaves are unconstitutional," Santiago stressed.

News Latest News Feed