FROM THE STANDS
The Philippine Star
By Domini M. Torrevillas
Congratulations to Vice-President Jojo Binay for successfully working for the reprieve of three Filipino overseas workers who were sentenced to die yesterday for smuggling drugs to the People’s Republic of China. Early, the VP, with, for sure, the assistance of government authorities, showed his negotiating skill in delaying the execution of the three convicted Filipinos. How long the reprieve lasts, or whether they would be commuted for the rest of their lives, and not executed, will be known in due course.
With due respect to the VP, however, I agree with Teresita Ang See, a Filipino-Chinese activist, who said in a television interview yesterday that the Chinese government has a very strict rule against drug smuggling, and we should not expect it to bend over backwards in its treatment of convicted Filipinos. Teresita strongly argued that the three had known that they were carrying illegal luggage; they were not just “mules” who knew nothing of their mission. How could one not know she was carrying four kilos of heroine? She said while it is right for our government to intercede on behalf of its citizens facing lethal injection, it should be concerned with the victims of drug traffickers and dealers. Indeed, how many lives — of children and adults — have been ruined because of people who want to earn quick money? Why do we plead for the forgiveness of the convicts, when we should worry about the fate of the victims of drug lords, traffickers, and couriers?
I agree with Teresita and other concerned people, that heinous crimes cannot be treated with kid gloves; drug dealers should be meted the death penalty.
In addition, I propose that to eliminate manufacturing of shabu and other dangerous drugs, whole communities must be involved in the clean-up process, that local government officials be punished if such laboratories are found in their communities, and whistle blowers should be given rewards.
* * *
In the interest of balance and fairness, I am printing the response of Cielo Villaluna, Philippine Airlines spokesperson, to my February 15 column on the Philippine Airlines-Flight Attendants Association of the Philippines (PAL-FASAP) dispute.
“PAL Management, contrary to claims by certain sectors, does not regard its flight attendants as sex objects for marketing purposes.
“They are highly-trained service providers and safety professionals. Their competence on safety, resulting from comprehensive training, is crucial in ensuring the safety and well-being of passengers in all phases of the flight.
“On the issue of retirement age, the debate is in two venues: 1) the Department of Labor and Employment and 2) the Makati Regional Trial Court.
“It is PAL’s position that retirement age can be the subject of agreement or negotiations. Hence, in the last Collective Bargaining Agreements between PAL and FASAP, there were various retirement ages, agreed upon by both Management and the Cabin Crew Union (FASAP), to wit:
“1). For those hired before 1996, 55 years old for female cabin crew and 60 for male cabin crew;
“2). For those hired between 1996 – November 2000, 45 years old for both genders;
“3). For those hired from Nov. 2000 onwards, it is 40 years of age.
“All of these CBA provisions were duly approved by the FASAP officers with the aid of their lawyers and ratified by the members themselves. There was no force or coercion in any way, shape or form. In fact, they agreed to lower the retirement age in exchange for economic benefits and more beneficial work rules.
“FASAP, in its efforts to renegotiate its CBA with PAL Management, questioned its “retirement ages”, saying the same is unconstitutional, citing gender discrimination, among others. This was the particular point that became the subject of the PAL-FASAP dispute brought before the Department of Labor and Employment.
“Last December 23, 2010, Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz ruled that the retirement age should be pegged at 60 years old for both male and female cabin crewmembers. Her order included financial and other non-economic benefits. PAL Management filed a motion for reconsideration after said decision was rendered. While PAL’s appeal is still pending with the DOLE, the Makati RTC in a separate case, lifted a writ of injunction which earlier prevented PAL from retiring flight attendants reaching 55 years of age.
“With the court’s order lifting the injunction, it is PAL Management’s position that there is no legal impediment for it to retire its Flight Attendants at 55 years old. In essence, PAL has a legal basis and was merely implementing a valid and enforceable court order. PAL’s legal counsels believe that a valid court order takes precedence over a department ruling that is not final and executory. Therefore, claims that PAL was defying a DOLE ruling, are baseless. We have a situation where two separate branches of government have adopted different views on the subject matter.
“It is important to note that those who will be retired as a result of the court order are not without remedy. If at the end of the case, the court rules that they are to be retired at 60, they can be paid salaries and benefits that have accrued to them. Judge Oscar Pimentel of the Makati RTC required PAL to post a P5 million counter-injunction bond to answer for any or all damages if the Court later determines that PAL is not entitled to the lifting of the said injunction order.” — Cielo Villaluna, PAL spokesperson
* * *
Joe Nacilla of Las Pinas City reacts to my column last week, saying lawyer Lorna Kapunan’s reason to complain about the unfair practice of some multinational corporations is the lack of protection for local entrepreneurs and that “in most cases existing laws and requirements are being used as a backdoor to corruption. There are enough examples of how a generally good idea is used as a backdoor for bad intentions.
“To start a business in the Philippines, we have to pass a sea and tedious bureaucratic processes that allow a lot of powerbrokers to poke their noses into our business. We are left at the mercy of the smallest unit in the bureaucracy who are investment insensitive and inhospitable to investors and are only inclined to make a quick buck. We have to spend a lot of money before we can start the business. If you have more patience you might be able to secure the proper paper business permit but only after the business opportunity has passed. This happened to me, forcing me to close my planned business before starting it. The funny thing is, before you can retire your business, you again have to pass tedious bureaucratic processes that take time and additional expenses.”
No comments:
Post a Comment