IRRI Workers Take Round 1
House Labor Committee Moves to Strip IRRI of Immunity

After much discussion and debate, the House Committee on Labor and Employment approved on March 12 bill partially lifting the blanket immunity being enjoyed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), particularly with respect to workers’ rights and labor-related matters.

BY BULATLAT.COM

In an executive meeting, the labor committee headed by Zamboanga del Norte Rep. Roseller L. Barinaga finally approved House Bill No.5095, also known as the “IRRI Workers’ Rights Act.” The bill is principally sponsored by Bayan Muna party-list Reps. Satur C. Ocampo, Crispin B. Beltran and Liza L. Maza and co-authored by 20 other lawmakers, including key leaders of the labor committee.

The act seeks to amend Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620 signed by President Ferdinand Marcos in 1979 granting IRRI the full immunities and privileges of an international organization. The institute was established in 1959 through a memorandum of agreement between the Philippine government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and was registered at the Securities and Exchange Commission as a non-stock, non-profit research organization.

Barinaga moved for the passage of HB No.5095 and its consequent submission to the plenary for debates after the committee was able to resolve questions on the legality of HB 5095, including concerns posed by IRRI management that the bill would adversely “affect the country’s stature in the international scene.”

Additional amendments were incorporated in the original version of the bill to address the concerns of some lawmakers who previously expressed some reservations on the measure.

“The approval of HB No.5095 at the committee level is but the first decisive step in the long and arduous process toward restoring the rights taken away from the Filipino workers of IRRI almost 24 years ago,” declared Ocampo, principal sponsor of the bill.

A similar measure is now pending with the Senate Committee on Labor and Employment, filed by Sen. Francis Pangilinan.

Among the most contentious issues were questions on whether Congress had the power to strip IRRI of its immunity, and whether it would violate the principle of international agreements, particularly a “treaty” signed in Manila in 1995 by some 19 ambassadors and diplomats which supposedly “recognized” the international status of IRRI.

In response, Ocampo referred to the opinion column of noted constitutionalist Father Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, who had argued in one of his opinion columns that PD 1620 “has the status merely of a statute” and as such can be repealed or amended by another statute.

The party-list solon likewise noted that the “1995 treaty” being cited by IRRI management and representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is not automatically binding to the Philippines since the instrument was never ratified by the Philippine Senate, nor by the legislative bodies of the other contracting parties.

The committee concluded its deliberations on the bill after a total of four hearings, which started on Oct. 16 last year. Just two weeks before, the IRRI management laid off 175 Filipino workers citing financial difficulties due to dwindling fund contributions from donor countries.

Some of the workers decided to file a case for illegal retrenchment with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that IRRI management did not follow normal procedures under the Labor Code. IRRI lawyers however immediately moved for the dismissal of the case by virtue of the institute’s immunity through PD 1620.

The case is still pending with the NLRC. Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.