INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION vs. HON.

PURA
CALLEJA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED
SERVICES (TUPAS) WFTU
and
KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT TAC SA IRRI-ORGANIZED LABOR
ASSOCIATION IN LINE INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE vs. SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC.
G.R. No. 85750, 89331 September 28, 1990 J. Melencio Hererra
The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly
necessitated by their international character and respective purposes. The objective
is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their
internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these
instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs
of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from
political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States
of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.
Facts:
ICMC CASE
-On February 23 1981, an Agreement was forged between the Philippines and UN
High Commissioner for Refugees whereby an operation center for Indo-Chinese
Refugees before resettlement to other countries was established in Bataan.
-ICMC was one of the accredited centers for such purpose. It served as a non-profit
agency involved in intl humanitarian and voluntary work. It was incorporated in
New York. It enjoys Consultative Status, Catergory 2 and it is registered with the UN
ECOSOC.
-On July 14, 1986, TUPAZS filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment a
Petition for Certification Election among the members employed by the ICMC. ICMC
opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization and it
enjoys diplomatic immunity.
-On February 5, 1987, The Med-Arbiter sustained ICMCs opposition.
-TUPAS appealed before Director Pura Calleja of the BLR. He reversed the MedArbiters decision. AT that time ICMCs request for recognition as a specialized
agency was still pending with the DEFORAF.
-On July 15, 1988, ICMC was granted status of a specialized agency with diplomatic
privileges and immunities.
-ICMC sought the dismissal of the TUPAs Certification Election invoking immunity
but this was denied by the BLR Director. It filed two motions for reconsideration but
were duly denied.
-On November 24 1988, ICMC filed present Petition for Certiorari assailing the BLR
Order. The DEFORAF came in as an intervenor siding with ICMC.
-ICMC Continues to maintain its position that under our laws, it enjoys immunity
thus is exempt from our labor laws.
-The BLR states that a Petition for Certification Election is not a litigation and that it
is workers concern thusly ICMC cannot be anything else than a mere bystander.

IRRI Case
-On December 9, 1959, the Philippines and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish the IRRI at Los Banos, Laguna
intending ti to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock
organization with the principal objective of conducting research on rice on all
phases of its different phases to for the benefit of Asia.
--Initially, it was registered with the SEC as a private corporation but PD 1620 on
April 19, 1979 granted IRRI diplomatic immunity and other privileges and
prerogatives of an international org.
-The OLALIA, a legitimate labor organization, filed a Petition for Direct Certificate
Election with the RO of the DOLE. IRRI opposed the petition invoking PD 1620
restating its immunity.
-On July 7, 1987, the Med-Arbiter upheld the opposition.
-On appeal, the same BLR director in the ICMC case set aside the Med-Arbiters
Order invoking Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution and held that IRRI is not
exemppt
from
our
Labor
Laws.
-On July 5, 1989, the Secretary of Labor set aside the BLR Directors Order and it
held that the PD 1620 granted the IRRI status, prerogatives, privileges and
immunities of an international organization.
-Thus the Kapisanan, filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion
by the Secretary of Labor.
-Kapisanan contends that PD 162, granting immunity to IRRI is unconstitutional as it
deprives Filipino workers their fundamental right to form trade unions for collective
bargaining.
-Kaipsanan also raised thhat the BLR Directors Oder is final and unappealable.
However, the Secretary of Labor relied on Section 25 of RA 6715, providing that
direct filling of appeal form the Med-Arbiter to the Office of the SOLE instead of to
the Director of the BLR is allowed.
Issue:
Whether or not the Immunity granted to ICMC and IRRI also extends to our Labor
Laws.
Ruling:
YES.
Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government and
ICMC provides that ICMC shall have a status "similar to that of a specialized
agency." Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21
November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate through Resolution No.
19 on 17 May 1949, explicitly provides:
Art. III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever
located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal
process except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived their

immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any
measure of execution.
Sec. 5. The premises of the specialized agencies shall be inviolable. The property
and assets of the specialized agencies, wherever located and by whomsoever held
shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other
form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative
action. (Emphasis supplied).
IRRI is similarly situated, Pres. Decree No. 1620, Article 3, is explicit in its grant of
immunity, thus:
Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any
penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has
been expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institute or his authorized
representatives.

The foregoing opinions constitute a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch

of the Government that ICMC and IRRI enjoy immunities accorded to international
organizations, which determination has been held to be a political question
conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarrass a political department of
Government.
It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation
of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts
should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the
government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed
by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty
of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the
principal law officer of the government . . . or other officer acting under his
direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so
exercise their jurisdiction . . . as to embarrass the executive arm of the government
in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that in such cases the judicial
department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will
not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.
The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated
by their international character and respective purposes. The objective is to avoid
the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal
workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances
would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of
international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political
pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the
organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.
ICMC's and IRRI's immunity from local jurisdiction by no means deprives labor of its
basic rights, which are guaranteed by Article II, Section 18, Article III, Section 8,
and Article XIII, Section 3 (supra), of the 1987 Constitution; and implemented by

Articles 243 and 246 of the Labor Code,

Kapisanan.

relied on by the BLR Director and by

For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be
settled. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
Specialized Agencies of the United Nations 17 provides that "each specialized
agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes
arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the
specialized agency is a party." Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum
of Agreement between ICMC the the Philippine Government, whenever there is any
abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and
immunities accorded.
Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of dispute with
management as, in fact, there had been organized a forum for better managementemployee relationship as evidenced by the formation of the Council of IRRI
Employees and Management (CIEM) wherein "both management and employees
were and still are represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial
cooperation between IRRI and its employees." The existence of this Union factually
and tellingly belies the argument that Pres. Decree No. 1620, which grants to IRRI
the status, privileges and immunities of an international organization, deprives its
employees of the right to self-organization.