Aequitas, Libertar

“oh! what he did was so unfair, that was very unjust” we often hear other people say this line whenever their rights are being trampled or infringed. We read this daily on the news paper, hear news on the television regarding thereto, activists screams about it saying, “ipaglaban ang ating pagkakapantay-pantay”, an accused invoking it before the judge notwithstanding the gravity of his offense for him to be rescued from the wrath of law. In other words, they are asserting their right to equality. Equality is indeed a right primordial to man, inherent ever since the inception of his existence. A universal right deemed to be inviolable. A right once deprived from man can cause his humanity to be terminated.
Equality is not a privilege, it is a right therefore, everyone is entitled to the exercise and satisfaction thereof. Article III, sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws. Take note the phrase “equal protection of laws” the constitution affirmed that “all persons are subject to legislation should be treated alike, under any circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed” this is in consonance with what Thomas Paine said” what is my right ought to be a right of others.”
However, how important is equality to the so-called protected groups most especially in terms of employmeent? Let us first identify who are the protected groups. First women, society considers man as the superior sex and confers upon the former the stereotype that they are of inferior sex and being so they are only expected to be staying at home, doing household chores, taking after the kids while the husband is out hunting for food. This the traditional or conventional concept before, now everything has changed, “tempura mutamur nos et mutantur”- the times are changing and we are changing with them. For this very reason, the legislators passed series of laws to protect the women from discrimination, unjust labor employment and to walk abreast with the pace of modernity. An example thereof is the “Magna Cara for Women’s Rights”. This seeks to empower women, breach and debunk the misconception of society. Article V of the aforementioned law provides,
The State, as the primary duty-bearer, shall:
(a) Refrain from discriminating against women and violating their rights;
(b) Protect women against discrimination and from violation of their rights by private corporations, entities, and individuals; and
(c) Promote and fulfill the rights of women in all spheres, including their rights to substantive equality and non-discrimination.
The State shall fulfill these duties through law, policy, regulatory instruments, administrative guidelines, and other appropriate measures, including temporary special measures.
Recognizing the interrelation of the human rights of women, the State shall take measures and establish mechanisms to promote the coherent and integrated implementation, and enforcement of this Act and related laws, policies, or other measures to effectively stop discrimination against and advance the rights of women.
The State shall keep abreast with and be guided by progressive developments in human rights of women under international law and design of policies, laws, and other measures to promote the objectives of this Act.
Employment is not anchored on gender but to the capability of a person vying for the job thus we hear women say what man can do, we (women) can likewise do. In effect, gender is an immaterial or irrelevant basis for an employee to exclude a woman to be hired for it will not contribute to the acquisition and accumulation of profit to any business or government establishment. Furthermore, the Labor Code expressly provides in article 135 to wit; It shall be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex. We frustrate the intent of the Constitution if we countenance this wrongful act of discriminating a person on account of gender thus it was held in Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. NLRC (97) to wit;

“The Constitution, cognizant of the disparity in rights between men and women in almost all phases of social and political life, provides a gamut of protective provisions. To cite a few of the primordial ones, Section 14, Article II on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, expressly recognizes the role of women in nation-building and commands the State to ensure, at all times, the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Corollary thereto, Section 3 of Article XIII (the progenitor whereof dates back to both the 1935 and 1973 Constitution) pointedly requires the State to afford full protection to labor and to promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all, including an assurance of entitlement to tenurial security of all workers. Similarly, Section 14 of Article XIII mandates that the State shall protect working women through provisions for opportunities that would enable them to reach their full potential.”
Secondly, indigenous minorities Republic Act N° 8371 (“RA 8371”), Otherwise Known As The “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act Of 1997” provides that it shall be the right of the indigenous cultural communities/ indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) to be free from any form of discrimination, with respect to recruitment and conditions of employment so that they may enjoy equal opportunities for admission to employment, medical and social assistance, and safety, as well as other occupationally-related benefits.
RA 8371 makes it unlawful for any person:
(i) To discriminate against any ICC/IP with respect to the terms and conditions of employment on account of their descent. In this regard, ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs should be paid equal remuneration for work of equal value; and
(ii) To deny any ICC/IP employee any right or benefit herein provided for or to discharge them for the purpose of preventing them from enjoying any of the rights or benefits provided under RA 8371. The problem is that though there is already a law passed by the legislators other people still kept on perpetrating acts declared by the law as unlawful. For example the hereinabove law RA 8371, Aeta people climb down the mountain to travel all the way to the city with a hope that perhaps somehow they’ll have a decent living by getting employed in the city. What is frequently happening is that the people domiciled in the city avoid this people, say bad things to the indigenous people like “yuck”, “eeeew”. They are also human notwithstanding the apparent differences in color or descent. I thought this is a free country, where then is the essence of democracy, equality or social justice. “lex respiscit aquitatem”- the law regards equity. The right to survive is not afforded to them by discriminating them from being employed by reason of appearance, color and, descent. Therefore, what happened? there they are, they became vagrants of the street, the post-modern nomads of the city, drenched by the rain, scorched by the sun, emaciated by starvation on account of our racial prejudice. Third, individual aged 40 or above. I cant’t help but sigh in dismay whenever I read some papers being posted on the information board at the university or at the mall announcing to the public,
“We are in need of a sales representative 21-25 years old, single, with pleasing personality.” Not only is this discriminatory it equally takes away the chance of an individual to improve and change his/her life for good. It debases an individual that because he/she is at the age, which has already exceeded the dates of the months in the calendar, he/she is already worthless and rendered ineligible to be hired. age is but a number and therefore has nothing to do for a person to be qualified or not as long as he’s got skills to assure the company that in spite his age he can still contribute for its success. Fourth, Individual with disabilities, Defined as an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that constitutes a substantial limitation on a major life activity, a person with record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived as having such an impairment. The law also protects those who are in a relationship or associated with someone with a disability. Such impairment shall not bar a person to seek a job nor shall any employer discriminate them to be employed. The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, Section 5 provides;
“no disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowance as a qualified bodied person,” In Bernardo v. NLRC (99) the court held; “The noble objectives of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merely on charity or accommodation, but on justice and the equal treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not. In the present case, the handicap of petitioners (deaf-mutes) is not a hindrance to their work. The eloquent proof of this statement is the repeated renewal of their employment contracts. Why then should they be dismissed, simply because they are physically impaired? The Court believes, that, after showing their fitness for the work assigned to them, they should be treated and granted the same rights like any other regular employees.” Sympathizing to disabled persons by saying “oh you’re so pitiful, may God bless you” cannot and will never help. The more it will add to the miseries and wretchedness of this people suffering from disability. Sympathy and pity is not what they need for what they need is a tool for fishing to survive the fierceness of this world to show that they can prove something for themselves and to other people. What is discrimination and how does it affect the behavior of a business? Discrimination, according to a Nobel Prize recipient Kenneth Arrow, “the valuation in the market place of personal characteristics of the worker that are unrelated to worker productivity”.
These personal characteristics may be sex, race, height, appearance, age, national origin or sexual preference – or indeed any other identifiable characteristic.Discrimination is a cause of labour market failure and a source of inequity in the distribution of income and wealth and it is usually subject to intervention e.g. through regulation and legislation.
Discriminatory treatment of minority groups leads to lower wages and poor employment opportunities, including less training, job insecurity and fewer promotions. The result is that groups exposed to discrimination earn less than they would and suffer a fall in relative living standards. The government with a hope to curb discrimination enacted laws and to ensure that everyone would be entitled to equal employment opportunities. Here are the laws legislated for the preclusion of discrimination.
Labor Code On Women And Other Forms Of Discrimination
The Labor Code provides that the government shall ensure equal work opportunities, regardless of sex, race, age or women equal work opportunities with men.
Under the Labor Code, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any female employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of sex. The following are considered acts of discrimination:
.(i) Payment of lesser compensation, including wage, salary or other form of remuneration and fringe benefits, to a female employee as against a male employee for work of equal value; and
(ii) Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotions, training opportunities, and study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes.
It is also unlawful for an employer to do any of the following:
(iii) To require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a female employee shall not get married;
(iv) To stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a female employee shall be deemed resigned or separated;
(v) To dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a female employee merely by reason of her marriage;
(vi) To deny any female employee the benefits provided in the Labor Code or to discharge any female employee to prevent her from enjoying the benefits provided in the Labor Code;
(vii) To discharge any female employee on account of her pregnancy or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy;
(viii) To discharge or refuse the admission of any female employee upon her returning to work for fear that she may again be pregnant.
The Labor Code also makes it unlawful for an employer to do any of the following:
(ix) To discriminate against any employee who has filed any complaint concerning wages or has testified or is about to testify in such complaint;
(x) To discriminate against employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
(xi) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization;
(xii) To discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under the Labor Code.
Republic Act N° 7277 (“RA 7277”), As Amended By Republic Act N° 9442, otherwise known as the “Magna Carta for Persons with Disability”
RA 7277 provides that no person with disability shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable employment. A qualified employee with disability is subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able-bodied person. Furthermore, no employer shall discriminate against a qualified person with disability by reason of disability in regard to job application procedures; the hiring, promotion or discharge of employees; employee compensation; job training; and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. The following constitute acts of discrimination:
(i) Limiting, segregating or classifying a job applicant with disability in such a manner that adversely affects his or her work opportunities;
(ii) Using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out a person with disability unless such standards, tests or other selection criteria are shown to be job-related for the position in question and are consistent with business necessity;
(iii) Utilizing standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability or perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control;
(iv) Providing less compensation, such as salary, wage or other forms of remuneration and fringe benefits, to a qualified employee with disability, by reason of his or her disability, than the amount to which a person without disability performing the same work is entitled;
(v) Favoring an employee without disability over a qualified employee with disability with respect to promotions, training opportunities, and study and scholarship grants, solely on account of the latter’s disability;
(vi) Re-assigning or transferring an employee with disability to a job or position he or she cannot perform by reason of his or her disability;
(vii) Dismissingorterminatingtheservicesofanemployeewithdisabilitybyreason of his or her disability, unless the employer can prove that he or she impairs the satisfactory performance of the work involved to the prejudice of the business entity, provided, however, that the employer first sought to provide reasonable accommodations for the employee with disability;
(viii) Failing to select or administer in the most effective manner employment tests which accurately reflect the skills, aptitude or other factor of the applicant or employee with disability that such tests purports to measure, rather than the impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills of such applicant or employee, if any; and
(ix) Excluding persons with disability from membership in labor unions or similar organizations.
Republic Act N° 8371 (“RA 8371”), Otherwise Known As The “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act Of 1997”
RA 8371 provides that it shall be the right of the indigenous cultural communities/ indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) to be free from any form of discrimination, with respect to recruitment and conditions of employment so that they may enjoy equal opportunities for admission to employment, medical and social assistance, and safety, as well as other occupationally-related benefits.
RA 8371 makes it unlawful for any person:
(i) To discriminate against any ICC/IP with respect to the terms and conditions of employment on account of their descent. In this regard, ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs should be paid equal remuneration for work of equal value; and
(ii) To deny any ICC/IP employee any right or benefit herein provided for or to discharge them for the purpose of preventing them from enjoying any of the rights or benefits provided under RA 8371.
Republic Act N° 8504 (“RA 8504”), Otherwise Known As The “Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act Of 1998”
Under RA 8504, discrimination in any form from pre-employment to post-employment, including hiring, promotion or assignment, based on the actual, perceived or suspected human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status of a person is prohibited. Termination from work on the sole basis of actual, perceived or suspected HIV status is deemed unlawful.
Republic Act N° 8972 (“RA 8972”), Otherwise Known As the “Solo Parents Welfare Act of 2000”
RA 8972 provides that no employer shall discriminate against any solo parent (sometimes referred to as single parent) employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment on account of the employee’s status. The craving of the flesh is sometimes hard to withstand inducing desperation to a person who is in an extreme feeling of libido. When a mind of an individual is in a state of an irresistible libido he no longer cares about the existence of a law punishing the act he is about to commit against the another. He then concentrates himself to how he will commit the act, for example sexual harassment. Who commits this crime? How is this committed? What law grants penalty therefor?
Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act) Committed by any person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work, training or education environment when he or she demands, requests, or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of the said act (for a passing grade, or granting of scholarship or honors, or payment of a stipend, allowances, benefits, considerations; favorable compensation terms, conditions, promotions or when the refusal to do so results in a detrimental consequence for the victim).
Also holds liable any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment, or who cooperates in the commission, the head of the office, educational or training institution solidarily. Complaints to be handled by a committee on decorum, which shall be determined by rules and regulations on such. Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful acts of sexual harassment.

Sources: http. // www.philstar.com/author/Chris Malazarte/ Trade Forum http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-labour-market-discrimination.html Labor Code of the Philippines and it implementing rules and regulations 2004-2005 edition
Revised Penal Code, appendix “X”, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 7877) pp. 430
Legal dictionary, Guandola, Merriam and Webster Bookstore, Inc. Manila, Philippines, copyright 1989, pp. 178.