3 good reasons why Duterte rejected anti-endo bill

The photo above is hot-linked from: Rodrigo Duterte: 'The moment I assume the presidency, contractualization will stop.'. Apr 25, 2016. https://www.cosmo.ph/entertainment/rodrigo-duterte-pilipinas-debates-2016-a00011-20160425.

Duterte's campaign promise is to end "contractualization" or "end endo." However, supporters and critics alike have recently been shocked when the President himself vetoed the Security of Tenure bill that would absolutely and completely prohibit "endo."

In rejecting the Security of Tenure bill, Duterte gave Congress the following reasons:

[1] The bill 'unduly broadens the scope and definition' of endo

While the proposed legislation codifies existing labor laws and regulations, Duterte argued that the bill effectively banned other forms of contractualization that do not particularly harm employees.

“Indeed, while labor-only contracting must be prohibited, legitimate job-contracting should be allowed, provided that the contractor is well capitalized,” the President told lawmakers.

However, while it is true that the proposed law does broaden the meaning of "endo," there appears to be no constitutional obstacle to this act of Congress. Congress, in its plenary legislative power, can define, punish and prohibit what it sees as inimical to the nation's interests as long as such measure passes the test of constitutionality and reasonableness.

[2] 'Businesses should be allowed to determine whether they should outsource certain activities or not'

Duterte said employers must be free to farm out jobs to a third-party contractor, especially when such an action will result in efficiency in their operations and is not unfavourable to workers.

"This is especially critical since empirical data shows that the Philippines is currently at a disadvantage already in terms of cost and flexibility of labor use compared to its peers in the region," he said.

[3] Constitutional policy to protect workers should not ‘oppress or destroy’ capital

Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, Duterte stressed that the government should balance the interest of the workers and employers.

"I believe the sweeping expansion of the definition of labor-only contracting destroys the delicate balance and will place capital and management at an impossibly difficult predicament with adverse consequences to the Filipino workers in the long-term," the President said.
This is the President's best argument so far. In fact, jurisprudence agrees with him. In a 2010 case, the Supreme Court held: "The law in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights, which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play."

No less than the Constitution recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector in our society and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, expansion and growth. The Fundamental Law says:

The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. (Article II, Section 20)

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth. (Article XIII, Section 3)

Azucena, one of the biggest names in the field of labor law, has said in his book, citing the Court: "Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life, the Supreme Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded the Court to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine."

In fact, government agencies and officers tasked with the enforcement of labor law are duly mandated to equally protect and respect not only the laborer or worker’s side but also the management and/or employer’s side. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. (Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc. vs. Ople, G.R. No. 73681, June 30, 1988)

READ MORE AT: Why Duterte vetoed the anti-endo bill. Ian Nicolas Cigaral (Philstar.com) - July 26, 2019 - 1:09pm. https://www.philstar.com/business/2019/07/26/1938064/why-duterte-vetoed-anti-endo-bill