Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER IX Right To Join Associations
CHAPTER IX Right To Join Associations
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
Article III Sec. 8: “The right of the people to, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1980/
sep1980/gr_49272_1980.php
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1981/
oct1981/gr_50874_1981.php
FACTS:
Petitioner Arthur Ternate and respondent Lucerio Fajardo were
two strong contenders in the election of union officers on
October 23, 1977. Ternate received 308 votes while Fajardo 285
votes. Employees who were classified as second helpers casted
forty (40) ballots which were now challenged. They were
included in the list of qualified voters upon the motion of the
Fajardo faction and over the opposition of the Ternate group. It
was imposed as a condition that the challenged ballots would be
segregated and would be counted only after passing upon the
question of membership of such second helpers. The Ternate
group finally agreed to allow them to participate in the election.
Respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel at first ruled that they
could not, apparently relying on the applicable provision of
the Labor Code, which reads thus: "Any employee, whether
employed for a definite period or not, with at least one year of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee for purposes of membership in
any labor union. However, when a motion for reconsideration
was filed, he granted it and allowed the votes to be counted.
RULING:
We hold and rule that petitioners, although entitled to disaffiliate
from their union and form a new organization of their own, must,
however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the
union under the security clause of the CBA.
'Due process' simply means that the parties were given the
opportunity to be heard. In the instant case, ample and
unmistakable evidence exists to show that the oppositors were
afforded the opportunity to present their evidence, but they
themselves disdained or spurned the said opportunity given to
them.
Issues:
Ruling:
The court holds the VALIDITY Of the Anti-Subversion Act of
1957.
A bill of attainder is solely a legislative act. It punishes without
the benefit of the trial. It is the substitution of judicial
determination to a legislative determination of guilt. In order for a
statute be measured as a bill of attainder, the following
requisites must be present: 1.) The statute specifies persons,
groups. 2.) the statute is applied retroactively and reach past
conduct. (A bill of attainder relatively is also an ex post facto
law.)
The court did not make any judgment on the crimes of the
accused under the Act. The Supreme Court set aside the
resolution of the TRIAL COURT.
P. vs. Ferrer, 56 SCRA 793 (Read the dissenting opinion of Justice FERNANDO in
both cases)
FACTS:
On March 5, 1970 a criminal complaint for violation of
section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against the
respondent Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac.
The abovenamed accused, feloniously became an officer and/or
ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an
outlawed and illegal organization aimed to overthrow the
Government of the Philippines by means of force, violence,
deceit, subversion, or any other illegal means for the purpose of
establishing in the Philippines a totalitarian regime and placing
the government under the control and domination of an alien
power.
Meanwhile, on May 25, 1970, another criminal complaint was
filed with the same court, sharing the respondent Nilo Tayag and
five others with subversion.
Resolving the constitutional issues raised, the trial court, under
the decision of Hon. Simeon Ferrer in its resolution of
September 15, 1970, declared the statute void on the grounds
that it is a bill of attainder and that it is vague and overboard,
and dismissed the informations against the two accused.
The Government appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, REPUBLIC ACT No. 1700, otherwise
known as the Anti-Subversion Law a bill of attainder.
RULING:
No. A bill of attainder is the substitution of judicial
determination to a legislative determination of guilt.