SEC 8 .

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS,
TO FORM UNIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, OR SOCIETIES FOR PURPOSES NOT CONTRARY TO LAW SHALL NOT
BE ABRIDGED.

Right of association

-phrase could also mean simply that the right was "subject to the police power;" but he nevertheless
opposed the phrase for the reason that an explicit statement of the limitive effect of police power on
one right might give the impression that other rights were not so limited if their corresponding
constitutional guarantee did not contain a similar limiting phrase.

Right of association in the 1987 text.

-Whereas the 1973 Constitution preserved the 1935 text, the 1987 Constitution has made significant
changes. The Bill of Rights text now reads: "The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law
shall not be abridged." The right is thus recognized as belonging to people whether employed or
unemployed, and whether employed in the government or in the private sector. The provision also
explicitly recognizes that the right to form associations includes the right to unionize.

-that employees of the Social Security System"1 2 and public school teachers do not have a

constitutional right to strike. But the current ban on them against strikes is statutory and may be lifted
by statute.

The right of association in action: labor, subversion.

-In Philippine jurisprudence, the right of association has figured in litigation involving two areas of
associational activity: labor unionism and communist organization. In Philippine Association of Free
Labor Unions v. Secretary of Labor,im Section 23 of R.A. No. 875 requiring the registration of labor
unions was challenged as violative of the Bill of Rights. The challenge was answered by Chief Justice
Concepcion thus:"

The theory to the effect that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unduly curtails the freedom of assembly
and association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is devoid of factual basis. The registration prescribed in
paragraph (b) of said section is not a limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be
exercised with or without said registration. The latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the
acquisition of legal personality by labor organizations, associations, or unions and the possession of the
"rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations."

The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges, much less said personality, which are
mere statutory creations, for the possession and exercise of which registration is required to protect
both labor and the public against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers, although not truly
accredited agents of the union they purport to represent. Such requirement is a valid exercise of the
police power, because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and union or workers are
engaged affect public interest, which should be protected. Furthermore, the obligation to submit
financial statements, as a condition for the non-cancellation of a certificate of registration is a
reasonable regulation, for the benefit of the members of the organization, considering that the same
generally solicits funds or membership, as well as oftentimes collects, on behalf of its members, huge
amounts of money due to them or to the organization.

-People v. Hernandez,"16 where the Supreme Court said:"" We do not believe that mere membership in
the Communist Party or in the CLP renders the members either of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit
rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely implies advocacy of abstract theory or
principle without any action being induced thereby; and that such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is
coupled with action or advocacy of action, namely actual rebellion or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or
acts conducive thereto or evincing the same.

-The same decision, however, declared membership in the HMB a sufficient basis for conviction:" On the
other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implied participation in actual uprising or rebellion to
secure, as the Huks pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thralldom. By
membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of force, and by such membership
he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party. Such membership, therefore,
even if there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable
by law. And when a Huk member, not content with his membership, does anything to promote the ends
of the rebellion like soliciting contributions, or acting as courier, he thereby becomes guilty of
conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in the rebellion or uprising, in which latter case he
commits rebellion.

-People v. Ferrer- constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion Act." The Act, after declaring the Communist
Party of the Philippines and similar organizations "illegal and outlawed,"'1 21 provided in Section 4 thus:
"After the approval of this Act, whoever knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself with,
becomes or remains a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/ or its successor or of any
subversive association as defined in Section 2 hereof shall be p u n i s h e d . . . ."

-basic guidelines" for prosecution under the Act the following elements of the crime must be
established:"

(1) In the case of subversive organizations other than the Communist Party of the Philippines, (a) that
the purpose of the organization is to overthrow the present Government of the Philippines and to
establish in this country a totalitarian regime under the domination of a foreign power; (b) that the
accused joined such organization; and (c) that he did so knowingly, willfully and by overt acts; and

(2) In the case of the Communist Party of the Philippines, (a) that the CPP continues to pursue the
objectives which led Congress in 1957 to declare it to be an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of
the Government by illegal means for the purpose of placing the country under the control of a foreign
power; (b) that the accused joined the CPP; and (c) that he did so willfully, knowingly and by overt acts.
-United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma™ where the dispute was about the right of
association of managerial employees. The first sentence of Article 245 of the Labor Code provides that:
"Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization." The Petitioner-
Union contended that this provision contravened the constitutional right to form associations. The
validity of the ban, however, was upheld because the "right guaranteed in Art. I l l , §8 is subject to the
condition that its exercise should be for purposes 'not contrary to law.' In the case of Art. 245, there is a
rational basis for prohibiting managerial employees from forming or joining labor organizations." It was
held that "if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might
not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interest. The Union can also
become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in the Union membership."

-Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v. Court of Industrial Relations,im upheld the right
of all managerial employees to self-organization as a general proposition. The Labor Code of 1974
lumped together the terms "supervisor" and "manager" per se and called them "managerial
employees." Article 246 explicitly prohibits all managerial employees from forming unions. This was the
status of the law before the 1987 Constitution.