Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

In Re: REGISTRATION AND

ACCREDITATION (To participate in
the 2013 and Succeeding Party-list
Elections under the Party-list System
of Representation in the House of
Representatives) SPP Case No. 12-027 (PL)

COURAGE GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES PARTY LIST
(Courage), represented by its
National
President, Ferdinand R. Gaite,
Petitioner.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, Petitioner, COURAGE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

PARTY-LIST (hereinafter referred to as (“Courage”), through the

undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Commission, respectfully

alleges, that:

1. On October 1, 2012, undersigned counsel for the Petitioner

received a copy of this Honorable Commission’s Second Division’s Resolution

denying Petitioner’s Petition for Registration and Accreditation. The dispositive

portion of the Resolution states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is

hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

A copy of the Resolution is attached hereto as Annex “A”.

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 2 

2. The denial of the petition is based on the following grounds:

a. “Government rank-and-file employees, whether presently

employed or retired, are not among those enumerated under

the law as marginalized or underrepresented. While the

enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors in

the law is not exclusive, it demonstrates the clear intent of the

law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list

system. The Commission is of the opinion that the sector

that COURAGE seeks to represent is not marginalized and

is already overly-represented. The problems that COURAGE

proposes to resolve in case it is able to obtain a seat in the

House of Representatives such as those pertaining to salaries,

wages and benefits of the presently employed and retired rank

and file employees are already addressed by the different

departments or branches of government” (Emphasis supplied)

and

b. “Moreover, COURAGE failed to present its track record which

is a requirement to be submitted in support of the petition

under Section 7(f) of COMELEC Resolution 9366.”

3. Petitioner respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the above-

cited Resolution based on the following grounds:

THE RESOLUTION THAT GOVERNMENT

RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT
AMONG THOSE ENUMERATED UNDER
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 3 

THE LAW AS MARGINALIZED OR

UNDERREPRESENTED IS CONTRARY TO
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5(2) OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION AND TO SECTION 5
PARAGRAPH 1 OF RA 7941 WHICH
ENUMERATE LABOR AS ONE OF THE
SECTORS THAT MUST BE GIVEN
REPRESENTATION THROUGH THE PARTY-
LIST SYSTEM.

II

ALTHOUGH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

ARE FURTHER CATEGORIZED AS PUBLIC
SECTOR LABOR AS OPPOSED TO
PRIVATE SECTOR LABOR, THEY FALL
UNDER THE GENERAL CATEGORY OF
LABOR. BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SECTOR LABOR AND THOSE IN THE
INFORMAL AND NON-FORMAL SECTORS
MAKE UP THE LABOR SECTOR.

III

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PARTY-LIST

LAW DO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LABOR, HENCE,
THIS HONORABLE COMMISSION AND THE
COURTS, IN GENERAL, SHOULD NOT
DISTINGUISH AND DISCRIMINATE. HAD IT
BEEN THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS OF
THE CONSTITUTION TO CATEGORIZE THE
PRIVATE SECTOR LABOR ONLY AS
MARGINALIZED AND
UNDERREPRESENTED FOR PURPOSES OF
THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF
REPRESENTATION, THEN THEY WOULD
HAVE DONE SO.

III

THE SECOND DIVISION’S OPINION THAT

GOVERNMENT RANK-AND-FILE
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT MARGINALIZED
AND IS ALREADY OVER-REPRESENTED
ALSO LACKS FACTUAL BASIS.

IV

THE RESOLUTION THAT PETITIONER

FAILED TO PRESENT ITS TRACK RECORD
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 4 

IS CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENTLY
ESTABLISHED ITS TRACK RECORD. THE
ENUMERATION OF THE WORKS AND
SERVICES RENDERED BY THE
PETITIONER AS CONTAINED IN THE
PETITION HAD BEEN SUBSCRIBED UNDER
OATH, ELABORATED ON AND TESTIFIED
TO DURING THE HEARING. A PICTURE OR
CERTIFICATION IN ADDITION THERETO IS
NOT REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 7(f) OF
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9366. BUT IN
ORDER TO ERASE ANY DOUBT THAT MAY
HAVE BEEN CREATED BY SUCH
OBSERVATION, PETITIONER HEREBY
ATTACHES PICTURES AND DOCUMENTS
OF THE SERVICES IT HAD RENDERED TO
ITS SECTOR.

4. Petitioner shall now discuss the foregoing grounds:

5. If government employees cannot be categorized as belonging

to the labor sector, then, how do we classify their labor or workforce?

Did the framers of the Constitution only think of the private sector employees

and the informal or non-formal workers when they used the term “labor” in

Article VI, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution? Otherwise stated, was it the

Constitution and the law’s intent to exclude public sector labor?

6. In expounding on Article XIII, Section 3 (Section on Labor) of the

Constitution, noted Constitutionalist Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. wrote that “the

first paragraph extends the protective mantle of the Constitution to all of labor

– local and overseas, organized and unorganized, in the public and private

sectors.”1 (Emphasis supplied)

1
BERNAS, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (2003).
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 5 

7. Actually, it should suffice to say that the well-known maxim in

statutory construction that “when the law does not distinguish, we should not

distinguish” applies in the instant discussion. The Constitution and RA 7941

listed labor without distinguishing between public or private sector labor,

hence, this Honorable Commission and the courts, in general, should not

make any distinction. To distinguish between public and private sector labor

when the law does not so distinguish is to go against its intent. Worse, to

exclude public sector labor in the ambit or coverage of the term labor is to

deprive those working in that sector of the protection and/or benefit intended

by the Constitution or the law.

8. To further illustrate the point, aside from Article VI, Section 5(2) of

the Constitution, the term labor also appears in the following:

9.

10.

“ARTICLE II

Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social

economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.

ARTICLE XIII

LABOR

Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local

and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,

collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions
of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy
and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility

between workers and employers and the preferential use of
voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 6 

shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster

industrial peace.

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.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Are we to consider public sector labor as excluded from the application

of the foregoing Constitutional provisions? The obvious answer is in the

negative.

11. In its Formal Offer of Evidence and Memorandum filed before the

Honorable Commission on May 8, 2012, Petitioner has also claimed and

argued that the sector that it represents falls under the labor sector. The

relevant discussion therein is hereto reproduced:

PETITIONER REPRESENTS A
SECTOR THAT IS ENTITLED TO
REPRESENTATION UNDER THE
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF
REPRESENTATION AS PROVIDED
UNDER SECTION 5, PARAGRAPH
1 OF RA 7941.

12. Petitioner is a sectoral party of public sector labor with

membership that is comprised mostly of current and retired rank and file

workers and employees of the Government of the Republic of the

Philippines and their families. Its membership is open to all Filipinos of

voting age who believe and shall work for the genuine representation of the

workers and the employees of the government, and the protection and

advancement of their rights as workers and social beings.

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 7 

13. Section 5, paragraph 1 of RA 7941 provides, as follows:

“Section 5. Registration. Any organized group of persons may register

as a party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system

by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the

election a etition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to

participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral

party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations,

attaching thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of

government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant

information as the COMELEC may require: Provided, That the sectors

shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous

cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,

veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.” (Emphasis

supplied)

14. Public sector labor, no doubt, falls under the labor sector.

And as clearly seen above, labor is one of the sectors (in fact, the first in the

enumeration) that is entitled to representation under the party-list system of

representation. Hence, party-lists that represent the labor sector may register

with the Honorable Commission for purposes of the party-list elections.

15. The more than 1.3 million employees of the government and its

agencies form a sub-sector of their own that is separate from their

counterparts in the private sector, although both private and public belong to

the overall sector of labor. Public sector employees: a) have one common

employer – the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; b) their salaries

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 8 

are fixed by law; and c) their employment, working conditions, hiring and

promotions and conduct, etc. are primarily governed by the Civil Service Law.

16. But like their private counterparts, government employees also

face continuing struggles for higher salaries, jobs and job security, union rights

and against exploitation, repression and limitation of their basic rights. On top

of these are issues affecting the people in general such as poverty, increasing

prices of commodities, sovereignty and other national concerns.

RANK-AND-FILE GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES AND THEIR
FAMILIES ARE MARGINALIZED
AND UNDERREPRESENTED IN
CONGRESS.

17. The Honorable Second Division opined that rank-and-file

government employees is not marginalized and is already overly-represented.

The questioned Resolution further stated that: “The problems that COURAGE

proposes to resolve in case it is able to obtain a seat in the House of

Representatives such as those pertaining to salaries, wages and benefits of

the presently employed and retired rank and file employees are already

addressed by the different departments or branches of the government.”

18. Who or what party-list solely represents the government

employees, particularly the rank-and-file among them, in Congress?

19. Currently, no party-list in the House of Representatives

represents the government employee. Save for the public school teachers,
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 9 

no party-list exclusively represents the government employees and although

legislators may occasionally speak of their plight and sponsor or propose

legislative measures to address their situation, no representative, district or

party-list, can claim genuine representation of the government employees,

Hence, legislative measures are wanting, inappropriate and not truly

responsive to the government employees’ real situation.

20. The more than 1.3 million government employees are comprised

mainly of rank and file employees that petitioner seeks to represent in

Congress. And contrary to the Honorable Second Division’s opinion or

observation, they remain marginalized and underrepresented.

21. In the Fifteenth Congress, the following accredited party-lists have

elected representative/s:

PARTY-LIST SECTOR/S REPRESENTED

1 CARE consumers in Mindanao

1-UTAK transport sector
A TEACHER teachers
AA KASOSYO micro-entrepreneurs
AAMBIS-OWA farmers
AANGAT TAYO women, the elderly, the youth, urban
poor, OFWs, and the labor sector
ABANTE MINDANAO regional party-list
ABONO farmers
ABS arts and business professionals
ACT TEACHERS teachers
AGAP agricultural sector
AGBIAG regional party-list
AGHAM science professionals
AGP (Ang Galing Pinoy) drivers, security guards
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 10 

AKBAYAN multi-sectoral political party

AKO BICOL regional party-list
ALAGAD urban poor
ALE private sector labor and employees
ALIF indigenous people
AN WARAY regional party-list
ANAD anti-Communists
ANAKPAWIS peasant and private sector labor
ANG KASANGGA micro-entrepreneurs
APEC electric cooperatives, micro-
entrepreneurs
ATING KOOP cooperatives
AVE educators/professionals
BAGONG women and children
HENERASYON
BAYAN MUNA multi-sectoral party
BUHAY family
BUTIL peasant
CIBAC Multi-sectoral political organization /
anti-corruption advocates
COOP NATCCO cooperatives
DIWA private sector labor
GABRIELA women and children
KABATAAN youth and students
KAKUSA prisoners/detainees
KALINGA urban poor
LPGMA entrepreneurs
PBA athletes
SENIOR CITIZENS senior citizens
TUCP private sector labor
UNA ANG PAMILYA family
YACAP young urban professionals

22. From the above list, notably, three (3) party-lists represent

cooperatives; four (4) represent micro-entrepreneurs; two (2) represent the

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 11 

family; one (1) is anti-Communists; and one represents the prisoners and

detainees - - when these sectors are not specifically enumerated under RA

7941. And while there are four (4) party-lists that represent the private sector

labor, none represents the public sector labor.

23. As to the opinion that “the problems that COURAGE proposes to

resolve in case it is able to obtain a seat in the House of Representatives such

as those pertaining to salaries, wages and benefits of the presently employed

and retired rank and file employees are already addressed by the different

departments or branches of the government”, is it not also true that for the

private sector labor, for example, there is one department of the

government (the Department of Labor and Employment or DOLE), that

specifically addresses private sector labor’s concern, not to mention the

various specialized offices under it such as the National Labor Relations

Commission? On top of that, there is one code of laws, the Labor Code of the

Philippines, which contains a codification of laws pertaining to private sector

labor. But why did the Constitution enumerate labor as one sector that entitles

representation? And why are there now four (4) party-lists representing the

private sector labor sector in Congress? It is because the Constitution dictates

that labor must be included in the party-list system of representation such that

private sector labor party-lists were registered and accredited by this

Honorable Commission paving the way for their victories in the party-list

elections.

24. Based on the foregoing discussion, it does not therefore follow

that public sector labor can be denied the opportunity to be represented in

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 12 

Congress under the party-list system just because there already exist

government agencies that are supposed to, one way or the other, address the

concerns of this sector.

25. It is respectfully submitted that what the party-list law

addresses is representation in Congress and not representation in the

government.

26. If we are to follow the reasoning that when a particular sector’s

concerns are already addressed by the different departments or branches of

the government, then they may no longer be allowed to be given the

opportunity to join the contest, it may pave the way for the total elimination of

the party-list system in the country. For all sectors can be pinpointed to a

particular and existing government office or agency that is tasked to address

their concerns, one way or the other. This is especially true for the sectors that

are clearly marginalized. Hence, there is the Department of Agriculture for the

peasants, the National Youth Commission for the youth, the National

Commission on Indigenous Peoples for the indigenous peoples, the Philippine

Commission on Women (formerly, the National Commission on the Role of

Filipino Women) for the women, etc.

27. Generally speaking, the current situation of government

employees in the areas of salaries, jobs and rights is quite distressing.

The minimum salary (Salary Grade 1) is only about one-fourth of the cost of

living in Metro Manila. Benefits are also inadequate to address the rising costs

of basic needs. The programs and benefits through the workers’ funds of such
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 13 

agencies as the GSIS, PHIC and Pag-ibig do not satisfactorily supplement

their retirement, housing, health and other requirements. Jobs are being lost

due to privatization, rationalization, reorganization, and streamlining of

government agencies, in addition to the use of contractual, casual, job-order,

and other “flexible” forms of employment. Still only a minority of government

workers are unionized or organized due to unfair practices such as

harassment, interference, and in the extreme, extra-judicial killings.

28. Government employees and workers have waged campaigns to

address their basic rights and welfare at the local, sectoral and national levels.

Yet many of these concerns are not adequately addressed. This is the

rationale for the need of representation in Congress to champion the cause of

government workers.

29. In many respects and although with marked differences in

their respective conditions, members of the public sector labor are in

essence, no different from those in the private sector. It is high time that

like their counterparts in the private sector, the public employees, be

given the opportunity to be represented in Congress.

30. Below is a comparison of issues faced by private and public

sector labor:

Issue PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR

Wage and benefits Current minimum pay NCR – Minimum Wage
under SSL 3 for Salary P446 x 22 = P9,812
Grade 1 = P9,000

Security of tenure Lay-offs due to Lay-offs due to closure,

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 14 

privatization and redundancy, etc.;

reorganization or contractualization and
rationalization; casualization of labor
increasing number of job
orders, contractual,
casuals, etc.

Other rights Right to peaceful Right to strike is limited

concerted activities by the Secretary of
including the right to Labor’s assumption of
strike is prohibited jurisdiction

Collective negotiation is Collective bargaining

also limited and with agreement
stringent impositions
such as cap on
incentives and other
benefits

Insurance and social Insurance and security –

security – GSIS, SSS, Philhealth, PAG-
Philhealth, PAG-IBIG – IBIG also prescribed by
all prescribed by law law

PETITIONER HAS PRESENTED

AND SUFFICIENTLY
ESTABLISHED ITS TRACK
RECORD.

31. The enumeration of the works and services rendered by the

Petitioner as contained in the petition had been subscribed under oath,

elaborated on and testified to by its National President, Ferdinand Gaite during

the hearing before this Honorable Commission. It is Petitioner’s humble

submission that a picture or certification in addition thereto is not required

under Section 7(f) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366. What is crucial is the

veracity of Petitioner’s claimS.

32. Petitioner assures this Honorable Commission that it did not

fabricate nor invent the list of accomplishments and services submitted to this
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 15 

Honorable Commission. As a matter of fact, Petitioner had always been at the

forefront in the fight to ensure that government policies and even laws that are

detrimental to the government employees, especially to the most lowly among

them, are not passed unnoticed by these government employees. Among

many others, Petitioner conducted various education campaigns on these

policies and laws and on the rights and welfare of government employees.

Petitioner had also attended to their needs in times calamities.

33. The overwhelming number of Petitioner’s members

nationwide speaks volumes about its reputation and accomplishments.

As of latest count, Petitioner had established constituency in eleven (11)

regions in the country. It has three (3) chapters even in the northernmost tip of

the Philippines that is Batanes. It is unimaginable how Petitioner can grow

and expand its membership were it not for actual services it had

rendered and it continues to render to the government employees. The

Judicial Affidavit (Exhibit “R”) of its Secretary General, Jane M. Antonio

elaborates on the extent of membership that Petitioner has.

34. Finally, in order to erase any doubt that may have been created

by the Honorable Second Division’s observation, Petitioner hereby attaches

pictures and documents in further support of its track record.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner respectfully prays for the

reconsideration of the Honorable Division’s 24 September 2012 Resolution by

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Page 16 

issuing a new one granting Petitioner’s petition for registration and

accreditation.

Other reliefs as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City for Manila. 02 October 2012.

FOJA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner
173-E Scout Fuentebella Extension
Brgy. Sacred Heart, Quezon City 1103

Tel. Nos. 02-4141464 / 09479761197

Email address: fojalawoffice@gmail.com

By

ALNIE G. FOJA
IBP Lifetime No. 886729 /01-25-12 /Romblon
PTR No. 6229988B /01-26-12 /Q.C.
Roll No. 46372
MCLE Compliance No. III-0015986
May 7, 2010