ICMC vs Calleja Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI vs Sec of Labor and Employment Facts: ICMC case: o After the

e Vietnam War, Vietnamese refugees started fleeing from South Vietnam to other countries. The Philippine Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees forged an agreement whereby an operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan. ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the processing center in Bataan. It is a nonprofit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work, enjoys Consultative Status Category II, it is an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines. o The Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file employed members of ICMC. ICMC opposed because it was an international organization registered with the UN and enjoys diplomatic immunity. o Med-Arbiter: dismissed petition. Director Calleja of Bureau of Labor Relations reversed Med-Arbiter's decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election. At that time, ICMC's request for recognition as a specialized agency was still pending with DFA, but was later granted, with corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities. ICMC sought the immediate dismissal of the petition for certification election, but was denied. o ICMC filed petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction. SC: issued TRO on the certification election IRRI case: o The Philippine Government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations signed a memorandum of understanding establishing the International Rice Research Institute (IRRA), to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting basic research on the rice plant, on all phases of rice production, management, distribution and utilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economic advantage or benefit for the people of Asia and other major rice-growing areas through improvement in quality and quantity of rice. o Initially, it was organized and registered with the SEC as a private corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, it was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization by PD 1620. o The Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (OLALIA) is a legitimate labor organization with an existing local union, the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI (Kapisanan). o Kapisanan filed a petition for direct certification election. IRRI opposed due to it having the status of an international organization which

grants it immunity from all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws. Med-Arbiter: dismissed petition for direct election. BLR Director Calleja reversed Med-Arbiter's decision and called for a certification election among the rank and file employees of IRRI. The Secretary of Labor set aside Calleja's decision.

Issue: - Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws Held: - Yes Diplomatic Immunity has been granted to both ICMC and IRRI. For ICMC, Article 3 Section 4 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies states that specialized agencies like ICMC shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity. Their property and assets shall be immune from searc, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference. For IRRI, Article 3 of PD 1620 likewise states that it shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except where it has expressly waived its immunity. The objective in granting these immunities is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings, and to shield the affairs of international organizations from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of the member States of the organization and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor defeats this purpose. This immunity does not deprive labor of its basic rights as both ICMC and IRRI have their own modes of protecting the rights of those employed by them. For ICMC, the Government is given the discretion to withdraw their immunities and privileges if there has been abuse of those privileges granted. For IRRI, there is the formation of the Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM), wherein both management and employees are represented, for the purpose of maintaining mutual and beneficial cooperation between IRRI and its employees. It is inaccurate to state that a certification election is beyond the scope of that immunity as it is not a suit against ICMC because a certification election should not be viewed as an isolated event but one that could trigger a series of events in the process of collective bargaining which could inevitably involve both organizations in the legal process/proceedings. ICMC case: TRO on the certification election is made permanent. IRRI case: petition dismissed, decision of the Secretary of Labor affirmed.