PHL score drops in Labor Rights Index

The Philippines’ score in the global Labor Rights Index worsened this year, largely due to an environment that restricts unions, strikes, and collective bargaining deals.

A study by the Amsterdam-based WageIndicator Foundation and the Center for Labor Research showed the Philippines logged a score of 68 out of 100 in the global Labor Rights Index this year, falling 2.5 points from a 70.5 score in 2022.

According to the scale, a score of 60.5 to 70 means there is limited access to decent work.

However, the Philippines’ score was below the global average of 74.

The Labor Rights Index scored economies based on labor laws only, discounting the actual working conditions or labor law compliance in workplaces, the Dutch organization said in a statement.

The biennial report showed that the country maintained its 2022 scores in nine of the 10 indicators in the study, except for Freedom of Association, where it scored zero out of 100.

“The Philippines saw a negative score adjustment in the Freedom of Association Indicator,” it said. It cited the provision in the Labor Code that a trade union “must demonstrate majority support in a bargaining unit for engaging in collective bargaining.”

University of the Philippines-Diliman School of Labor and Industrial Relations Assistant Professor Benjamin B. Velasco said the score on the rights of association and collective bargaining was “not surprising” due to the labor-related killings in the country and the unimplemented recommendations of the International Labor Organization High-Level Mission last year.

“The challenge for [the country] is how to improve its institutions (Department of Labor and Employment, labor inspectors, Philippine Economic Zone Authority, police, and military) so that laws (labor-related or otherwise) are implemented fairly and judiciously. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done,” he added.

The Philippines posted a score of 100 for the Maternity at Work indicator, which is attributed to policies supporting maternity leave, benefits, and job protection for pregnant workers.

Philippine laws mandate at least 14 weeks of paid maternity leave, with cash benefits covering a substantial portion of a worker’s wages.

The Philippines had a score of 80 in four indicators: Fair Wages, Employment Security, Social Security, and Fair Treatment.

For Fair Wages, it cited Philippine laws on minimum wages and overtime compensation but noted the lack of a law requiring additional compensation for working on a weekly rest day.

For Employment Security, it cited laws that require written employment contracts and severance of at least two weeks’ wages for every year of service. However, there is no law that limits the probationary period to three months.

Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino National President Renecio “Luke” S. Espiritu called the scores for Fair Wages and Employment Security as “absurd,” noting that the minimum wage in the country (P7,531) is only a third of the living wage (P21,494).

“We in the labor movement will not stop in our fight to abolish all manpower agencies, a legislated wage increase of P750 plus, and guaranteeing union rights,” he said in a Facebook Messenger chat.

Meanwhile, the country scored 75 in both Safe Work and Child and Forced Labor as there is a lack of law restricting work that is prejudicial to the health of the mother or the child, and the lack of law setting employment entry age equal to or higher than the compulsory schooling age.

The Philippines scored 60 on Decent Working Hours, since it lacks laws restricting maximum working hours, including overtime, to 56 hours per week and requiring at least three working weeks of paid annual leave.

It also scored 50 on Family Responsibilities as there is no law requiring four-month parental leave for parents and flexible working arrangements for workers with family responsibilities.

“Comparing with other [Southeast Asian] countries. [The Philippines scored] higher than average. But this is because the ranking is based on legislation, not implementation,” Mr. Velasco said. “If enforcement is taken into consideration, I believe the Philippines will [score] lower.”

The Labor Rights Index 2024 is a de-jure index covering 145 economies and structured around the working lifespan of a worker.

In total, 46 questions or evaluation criteria are scored across 10 indicators. The overall score is calculated by taking the average of each indicator, with 100 being the highest possible score.

Greece and Hungary are among the top scorers, with 96 points each, while Nigeria is the worst with 37 points.

philippines

.pdf

Download PDF • 2.24MB

Source: Business World

PHL’s economic freedom improves

The Philippines’ ranking jumped nine spots in a global index on economic freedom due to higher scores in trade freedom and property rights, according to the Canada-based think tank Fraser Institute.

The country placed 59th out of 165 economies in the conservative think tank’s Economic Freedom of the World index which uses 2022 data. Its ranking improved from 68th place in the previous index which used 2021 data.

This was the Philippines’ highest placement since it ranked 57th in 2016.

The country received a score of 7.01 out of 10, a tad higher than the revised 6.93 in 2021. Its latest score was higher than the global average of 6.56.

Among Asia-Pacific jurisdictions, the Philippines lagged behind Hong Kong (8.58), Singapore (8.55), New Zealand (8.39), Australia (7.98), Japan (7.90), Taiwan (7.71), Malaysia (7.56), and South Korea (7.52).

However, the Philippines was ahead of Brunei Darussalam (6.99), Indonesia (6.96), Thailand (6.94), Mongolia (6.86), Cambodia (6.85), Vietnam (6.23), China (6.14), Papua New Guinea (6.02), Fiji (5.99), Laos (5.86), Timor-Leste (5.77), and Myanmar (4.54).

The Philippines had its highest score in the sound money category with 9.04, ranking 11th out of the 164 other countries. But it was down from 9.51 in 2021.

The country — yet again — performed worst in legal system and property rights with a score of 4.51, slightly higher than 2021’s 4.49.

The Philippine score in size of government declined to 7.83 from 7.91 in 2021. Among subcategories, it scored 8.83 in government investment and 6.91 in government consumption.

“The lesson from this is clear: a small fiscal size of government is insufficient to ensure prosperity,” Fraser Institute said. “The other areas of economic freedom — the rule of law and property rights, sound money, trade openness, and limited regulations — are also required.”

Manila’s score in the freedom to trade internationally category rose to 7.14 from 6.53 in 2021.

Its score in regulation slipped to 6.51 from 6.62 in 2021. Among sub-categories, the Philippines had its lowest score at 4.59 in business regulation and the highest score at 8.27 in credit market.

Leonardo A. Lanzona, an economics professor at the Ateneo de Manila University, said fiscal consolidation remains a key problem for the government’s economic policy.

It leads to “too much intervention in the markets,” he said in a Facebook Messenger chat.

Finance Secretary Ralph G. Recto in September said the Marcos government was on track with its medium-term fiscal consolidation program even as its debt remained at a record high due to pandemic-related loans.

“There is limited participation from the private sector as much of the economic growth is due to government spending,” Mr. Lanzona said. “Instead of the government spending directly, they should create the environment that allows greater public sector participation.”

Hong Kong topped the economic freedom index, followed by Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, the United States, Denmark, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and Luxembourg.

At the bottom of the list was Venezuela, followed by Zimbabwe, Sudan, Syria, Algeria, Myanmar, Argentina, Iran, Libya and Yemen.

The think tank said Ukraine (-0.94) and Moldova (-0.63) — the two nations that have either been invaded (Ukraine) or threatened militarily — saw the largest declines in ratings between 2021 and 2022.

The rating for Russia was also down (-0.30). “It may be obvious to point out, but war is very bad for economic freedom,” the think tank said.

Another important development in the index was the declining condition of Hong Kong, whose rating fell “precipitously” to 8.58 in 2022 from 9.05 in 2018.

“This is nearly half a standard deviation decline in just four years,” it said. “Thus, we continue to sound the alarm bell about signs of declining economic — and other — freedoms in Hong Kong.”

Sonny A. Africa, executive director of IBON Foundation, said the conservative index’s metrics “come from a narrow prioritization” of market freedoms and property rights, which “don’t align with a broader and more inclusive understanding of economic well-being and development.”

“This is why the so-called economic freedom scores are so inconsistent with the economic realities faced by the majority of Filipinos who remain poor and marginalized,” he said via Messenger chat.

Mr. Africa said the government’s fiscal consolidation was “evident in the distribution of the country’s declining score in size of government.”

“The relatively high score in government investment reflects the persistent emphasis on corporate-friendly infrastructure and pork barrel hard projects, while the lower government consumption reflects insufficient social services and safety nets,” he said.

“The increase in the score in the freedom to trade internationally category merely reflects continued liberalization that has worked so much against domestic agricultural and industrial development for decades,” he added.

Mr. Africa said the country’s nine-notch improvement in the index was “inconsistent” with important social indicators on a trajectory of decline.

The number of self-rated poor Filipino families has increased to 16.3 million or 59% of total families in September, while the number of households without savings rose to 19.2 million or 71% of total households in the third quarter, Mr. Africa explained, citing data from the Social Weather Stations and the central bank.

While the Philippines was ahead of Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar in the index, it has “much worse food insecurity than all these,” he said.

Mr. Africa cited a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report indicating that the Philippines has 44.1% of its total population suffering moderate or severe food insecurity, “which is more than the food insecurity of Indonesia (4.9%), Thailand (7.2%), Vietnam (10.8%), Laos (36.3%), and Myanmar (32%).”

“The Fraser Institute’s index focuses narrowly on market-oriented indicators such as trade freedom, property rights, and business regulation which are presumed to improve the economy,” Mr. Africa said. “In practice, these measures favor a deregulated economy that benefits large corporations and wealthy individuals at the expense of broader social development outcomes.”

In the report, the Fraser Institute noted that high-income industrial economies generally rank quite high for legal system and property rights, sound money, and freedom to trade internationally.

Their ratings were lower, however, for the size of government and regulation.

Source: Business World

Legal Framework of an Order for the Release of Property in the Philippines

 Introduction

In the Philippines, an Order for the Release of Property is a legal document issued by a court or other competent authority directing the release or return of a property that has been previously seized, attached, or impounded. This typically occurs in the context of civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings, where property may be temporarily held to secure compliance with legal obligations or ensure its availability as evidence in court proceedings. Understanding the legal framework governing such orders is crucial for both individuals and entities involved in disputes over property.

This article examines the legal basis, grounds, and procedures for the issuance of an order for the release of property under Philippine law, as well as the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

 Legal Basis for the Release of Property

The legal framework for the release of property in the Philippines is grounded in several key legal provisions, including:

1. Rules of Court: The Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Criminal Procedure under the Rules of Court of the Philippines provide detailed procedures for the seizure and release of property in various legal contexts, including attachment, replevin, and seizure as evidence in criminal cases.

2. Civil Code of the Philippines: The Civil Code governs property rights and includes provisions on ownership, possession, and the restitution of unlawfully seized property.

3. Revised Penal Code: The Revised Penal Code contains provisions relating to the confiscation and return of property involved in criminal acts, particularly in relation to evidence, stolen goods, or contraband.

4. Special Laws: Other laws such as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (Republic Act No. 9165), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), and Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (Republic Act No. 10863) also govern the seizure and release of property in relation to specific types of cases, such as drug-related offenses, graft, and smuggling.

 Common Scenarios for the Issuance of a Release Order for Property

The following are common scenarios where an order for the release of property may be issued:

1. Release of Attached Property (Civil Cases)

In civil litigation, a writ of attachment may be issued to prevent a defendant from disposing of property while the case is ongoing. The attachment serves to secure the satisfaction of a potential judgment. Once the case is resolved or if the attachment is lifted, the court may issue an order for the release of the attached property.

2. Release of Seized Property (Criminal Cases)

In criminal proceedings, property may be seized as evidence or as part of the investigation. After the trial, if the court determines that the property is no longer needed as evidence, or if the accused is acquitted, an order for the release of the property may be issued.

3. Release of Property in Replevin

In replevin actions, a party seeks the return of personal property that has been wrongfully detained by another. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, it may issue an order directing the release of the property to its rightful owner.

4. Release of Property Subject to Forfeiture

In cases where property is subject to forfeiture due to its connection with illegal activities (e.g., money laundering, graft, smuggling), a release order may be issued if the court or relevant authority determines that the property should be returned to its owner or custodian, especially if the forfeiture proceedings are resolved in favor of the property owner.

5. Release of Collateral in Foreclosure Proceedings

In some foreclosure cases, the court may issue a release order for property that has been seized or attached as collateral if the foreclosure has been legally resolved, such as through payment of the debt or a legal ruling in favor of the debtor.

 Grounds for the Issuance of a Release Order

An order for the release of property is typically issued based on the following grounds:

1. Resolution of Legal Proceedings: The most common ground for the issuance of a release order is the resolution of the legal case in which the property was seized. For example, if a case involving the attachment or seizure of property has been resolved in favor of the property owner, the court will issue an order to release the property.

2. Improper Seizure or Attachment: A party may also file a motion for the release of property if the seizure or attachment was made improperly or without legal basis. If the court finds that the property was wrongfully seized, it will issue an order for its release.

3. Compliance with Legal Obligations: If the property was held as security for compliance with a legal obligation, such as the payment of a debt, an order for release may be issued upon fulfillment of the obligation.

4. Substitution or Release of Surety: In certain cases, such as when a bond or surety is provided to secure the release of the property, the court may issue an order for the release of the property if it is satisfied that the bond or surety is sufficient.

 Procedures for Securing a Release Order

The process for securing a release order for property varies depending on the type of legal proceeding and the specific circumstances of the case. Below are the general steps involved:

1. Filing a Motion for Release

The party seeking the release of the property must file a motion for release with the court that has jurisdiction over the case. The motion must include relevant facts and legal arguments supporting the release of the property, such as the resolution of the case or the improper attachment.

2. Notice to Opposing Parties

After the motion is filed, the court will issue a notice to the opposing parties, allowing them to respond. If the opposing party objects to the release of the property, they may file an opposition or counter-motion.

3. Hearing

The court may schedule a hearing to hear both sides' arguments regarding the release of the property. During the hearing, the parties can present evidence and legal arguments to support their respective positions.

4. Issuance of the Release Order

If the court finds in favor of the party requesting the release of the property, it will issue an order for the release of property. The order will specify the terms and conditions of the release, including any obligations the party may need to fulfill before the property can be returned (e.g., payment of fees or the posting of a bond).

5. Enforcement of the Release Order

Once the release order is issued, the party in possession of the property must comply with the court’s directive and return or release the property to the rightful owner. Failure to comply with a release order may result in contempt of court or other legal consequences.

 Rights and Obligations of the Parties

The issuance of a release order imposes certain rights and obligations on the parties involved:

1. Rights of the Property Owner: Upon the issuance of a release order, the property owner has the right to have their property returned without delay. They may also claim compensation for damages if the property was wrongfully seized or detained.

2. Obligations of the Party in Possession: The party in possession of the property, such as law enforcement agencies or creditors, must promptly comply with the release order. Any delay or refusal to release the property can result in legal sanctions.

3. Payment of Costs and Fees: Depending on the circumstances, the court may require the party seeking the release to pay certain costs and fees associated with the release process, such as court fees, storage fees, or the cost of posting a bond.

 Legal Challenges to Release Orders

Opposing parties may challenge the issuance of a release order by filing a motion for reconsideration or appealing the court’s decision. Common grounds for challenging a release order include:

1. Pending Appeal or Legal Action: If there is a pending appeal or related legal action that could affect the disposition of the property, the opposing party may argue that the release of the property is premature.

2. Violation of Legal Requirements: If the party seeking the release has not fulfilled certain legal requirements, such as the payment of debts or the posting of a bond, the opposing party may argue that the release order should not be granted.

 Conclusion

An Order for the Release of Property is an important legal tool that ensures the return of property that has been seized, attached, or impounded during legal proceedings. The process of obtaining a release order is governed by specific laws and procedures, which seek to balance the rights of property owners with the interests of justice. Understanding the legal framework surrounding release orders helps parties navigate the legal process effectively, ensuring that property is released or returned in accordance with the law. Legal counsel is often necessary to ensure that all procedural requirements are met and that the property is properly returned to its rightful owner.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate