THE public school teachers who were dismissed by Education Secretary Isidro Cariño in 1990 are still pleading their case before the Supreme Court. The light at the end of the tunnel is not yet in sight for them.
The case stemmed from the mass protest staged by 800 Manila public school teachers on Sept. 14, 1990 against government inaction on their various complaints. They were dismissed when they refused to return to work within 24 hours. They then went to the Supreme Court, where they lost by a 10-5 vote. Through then Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, they were told they should first exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
Many of the petitioners complied. In their present petitions challenging the affirmance by the Civil Service Commission of their dismissals, they continue to invoke due process, the right of association, and freedom of expression. I think they should also specifically assert their right to strike.
While still a member of the Supreme Court, I repeatedly suggested that we reexamine the doctrine that government workers are not allowed to strike, unlike their counterparts in the private sector. This doctrine was announced in the case of SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals and applied without elaboration in the teachers’ case.
The SSS case was decided only by the Second Division. While it is theoretically considered a decision of the full Court, it does not necessarily represent the thinking of a majority of its members. Its application in the teachers’ case does not mean it was categorically affirmed by the banc because the teachers’ right to strike was not the issue in that case. The resolution simply assumed that the teachers did not have the right to strike as government workers and so acted improperly when they went on what they called a “mass leave.”
There is nothing in the Constitution expressly or even impliedly prohibiting government workers from going on strike. Both government and private workers are expressly guaranteed the right of association by the Bill of Rights, but only private workers are allowed by law to strike.
Article XIII specifically guarantees “all workers” the right to “peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.” But government workers are prevented by law from going on strike.
I submit that government workers have as much right as any other person in the land to speak out to seek redress of their grievances. The fact that they belong to the civil service has not deprived them one whit of their freedom of expression. It is ridiculous to even suggest that they have forfeited this basic liberty by simply accepting public employment.
The strike is a form of expression. It is an economic weapon for the protection of the worker, whether he comes from the public or private sector. To recognize it in private workers and withhold it from government workers is to deny the latter the equal protection of the laws. There is no substantial distinction between the workers to justify their unequal treatment.
It is no argument to say that compared to the private worker, the government worker performs vital functions that cannot be disrupted without serious detriment to the public welfare. That is not even accurate. The functions of a private hospital, for example, are no less urgent than those of a government hospital. The lives of the patients in both hospitals are equally valuable.
The reason for the discrimination is the erroneous basis of distinction between the two kinds of workers. The basis is the nature, not of their functions, but of their employment.
In any event, the strike need not paralyze the entity, whether it be public or private, for there is the return-to-work order that may be issued when the public interest is endangered. Such an order was in fact issued to the “protesting” teachers.
If the Supreme Court decides to affirm their dismissal, the reason should be their disobedience to that order and not because they took a “mass leave” to dramatize their protest. The Court should not consider the strike they held punishable per se for it was a legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression.
The quality of education would deteriorate in an atmosphere of repression, when the very teachers who are supposed to give their pupils an example of courage and assertiveness can only speak in timorous whispers against the outrage of their rights. The classroom should be an incubator of freedom, not fear.
Justice Isagani A. Cruz 