At the end of its stay in Manila, the ILO Mission didn’t
divulge any specific findings, as that will ultimately be the responsibility of
the ILO Committees. However, in a statement to the press,
the Mission
issued a general call for stepped up government efforts to protect freedom of
association. Underscoring that Filipino workers do not yet fully enjoy the
right to freedom of association, the ILO called for the Philippine government
to issue clear instructions for all agencies of the government, like the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, to "ensure that their actions do not infringe
upon the basic civil liberties of trade unionists."

Unsurprisingly, on the most
contentious issue presented to the ILO Mission and the primary issue the ILO
Mission sought to address, the Mission noted simply that it received
“contradictory statements concerning violence against trade unionists and the
sufficiency of the efforts made by the Government to ensure that workers may
exercise their trade union rights in a climate free from fear.” The ILO first
requested a Mission to the Philippines in 2007, after the Kilusang Mayo Uno, a militant trade
union federation representing nearly 300,000 Filipino workers, as well as other
independent trade unions, filed complaints with the ILO alleging labor
organizers and activists were being killed, abducted, arrested, or threatened
by Philippine government security forces.

For two years, the Philippines
refused
to allow the ILO Mission, arguing that the
killings and other abuses are not labor-related, but rather likely motivated by
politics, and therefore are not the concern of the ILO. Just days before the
mission was set to arrive, the Government was in full spin mode, arguing that
the numbers of “labor-related” killings are being intentionally inflated.
Disputing reports by the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights that 92 labor
organizers and activists have been killed since President Arroyo assumed
control of the Philippine government, Philippine officials argued that there
have been only 39 reported labor-related killings, and that human rights groups
have also categorized 24 of as being politically motivated-killings. 
However, considering that the Government is publicly insisting that labor
activities by certain unions, especially organizing activities, are really
political acts aimed at undermining the Philippine economy and supporting armed
rebellion, the intersection between politics and labor is immense and mostly an
irrelevant red herring. Labor unions have both the right and responsibility to
engage in political activities when needed to ensure that their member’s rights
are being respected.

 

Whether you choose to believe that 15, 39 or 92 labor
activists are dead for standing up for their rights, labor organizers and
activists continue to face violence and intimidation daily. Because the
government has likened militant unionism to political and economic rebellion,
the Armed Forces of the Philippines
consider activities by certain labor groups as being rebellious, and therefore
a legitimate target for counter-insurgency operation. As a part of its
counter-insurgency program, the Civil Military Operations units within the AFP
continue to conduct regular anti-union symposiums across Mindanao, including
around Dole Foods multi-million dollar pineapple plantation in Mindanao. Military officials also publicly accuse trade
union members of being rebels. It should come as no surprise then, that many of
those accused end up dead or missing, especially when those who commit the
crimes enjoy near universal impunity.

It’s not clear, yet, whether the ILO will push for fundamental changes to the government’s
counter-insurgency policies, as called for by the global labor movement
at the ILO this past summer.
Taking a small step in that direction, the ILO Mission has called for
improved training of military forces and other agencies. However, improved
training alone will make no difference if the military has at the core of its counter-insurgency
a policy to harass labor organizers and activists from certain labor
groups.  If the ILO does choose to push the Philippine government to
change its counter-insurgency program, it will ultimately face the same
challenges that the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, who
reported this past April that the Philippine government has failed to implement
his recommendations aimed at ending extrajudicial executions.

In the end, the ILO is constrained
by its tripartite governing model and its lack of power to impose sanctions
like the WTO. Thus, realistically, the ILO can only take on a very limited
mandate of improving social dialogue and providing technical assistance. Both
are important, especially in a country with a fractured union movement that
faces the combined efforts of the government and employers to undermine their
ability to represent workers, but they are not enough. Only meaningful action
by the Philippine government to prosecute those responsible for the deaths and
disappearances of labor organizers and activists, to end to the vilification,
threats, and harassments of labor leaders by government officials, and to end
anti-union education campaigns currently being conducted by the military will
all Philippine citizens take their first step towards enjoying their right to
freedom of association and to organize a union of their choice without
government interference.

For more information on trade union violence in the Philippines,
please visit ILRF's website.