Sei sulla pagina 1di 54

What is Magna Carta of seeks to eliminate

Women? discrimination against


women
by
recognizing,
protecting,
fulfilling
and
A comprehensive human
promoting
rights law
the rights of
filipino women,
especially
those in
the
marginalized
sectors.
Declaration of Policy
Recognizing that the economic, political, and sociocultural
realities affect women's current condition, the State affirms the
role of women in nation building and ensures the substantive
equality of women and men. It shall promote empowerment of
women and pursue equal opportunities for women and men
and ensure equal access to resources and to development
results and outcome. Further, the State realizes that equality of
men and women entails the abolition of the unequal
structures and practices that perpetuate discrimination and
inequality. To realize this, the State shall endeavor to develop
plans, policies, programs, measures, and mechanisms to
address discrimination and inequality in the economic,
political, social, and cultural life of women and men.
Human rights’ principles of women are:
 Universal and inalienable - all human beings are free and equal in
dignity and rights

 Indivisible - inherent to the dignity of every human being whether


in civil, cultural, economic, political or social issues

 Interdependent and interrelated - the fulfilment of one right often


depends, wholly or in part upon the fulfilment of others

 All individuals are equal as human beings by virtue of the inherent


dignity of each human person

 Rights based approach


Discrimination Against Women
 Any gender-based distinction, exclusion, or restriction
which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the
recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women, irrespective of
their marital status, on the basis of equality of men and
women, human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social , cultural, civil or any other field

 Any act or omission, including by law, policy, administrative


measure, or practice that directly or indirectly excludes or
restricts women in the recognition and promotion of their
rights and their access to enjoyment of opportunities, benefits
or privileges.
Discrimination Against Women

 A measure or practice of general application that fails to


provide for mechanisms of sex or gender-based
disadvantages or limitations of women… and

 Discrimination compounded by intersecting with


other grounds status or condition such as ethnicity, age,
poverty or religion
RIGHTS and
EMPOWERMENT of
Women
Human rights of women – all rights in the Constitution and those rights
recognized under international instruments duly signed and ratified by
the Philippines, in consonance with Philippine law shall be the rights of
women under MCF:

Protection from Violence


Protection and security in times of disasters and calamities
Participation and Representation
Equal treatment before the law
Equal access and elimination of discrimination in education, scholarships
and trainings
Equal participation in Sports
Non-discrimination in employment in the field of military, police and
other similar services
Non-discriminatory and non-derogatory portrayal in media and film
Comprehensive health services and health information and education
Special leave benefits
Equal rights in all matters relating to marriage and family relations
Special Leave Benefits for Women
(Section 18)
 Requisite: Continuous aggregate employment
service of at least six (6) months for the last twelve
(12) months.

 Benefit: Two (2) months leave with full pay based


on her gross monthly compensation following
surgery caused by gynecological disorders.
Special Leave Benefits for Women
(Section 18)
 As amended by DOLE Department Order No.
112-A (May 22, 2012)

- amended the guidelines on the implementation of


the leave benefit for women employees in the
private sector. DOLE inserted a new provision
under Section 4 which provides:
Special Leave Benefits for Women
(Section 18)
 “The special leave benefit – the two (2) months
special leave benefit is the maximum period of
leave with pay that a woman may avail of under RA
9710. For purposes of determining the period of
leave with pay that will be allowed to a woman
employee, the certification of a competent
physician as required period of recuperation shall
be controlling.
Special Leave Benefits for Women
(Section 18)
 Additionally, Section 6 of the DO 112-A also
provides as follows:
 Frequency of availment – “a woman employee can
avail of the special leave benefit for every instance of
surgery due to gynecological disorder for a maximum
total period of two (2) months per year.”
 Effect: The total recovery period for a woman
employee is limited to two months per year regardless
of the frequency of surgical operations that a female
employee might undergo.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7877

“AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL


HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN THE
EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR
TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
Declaration of policy
The State shall value the dignity of every individual,
enhance the development of its human resources,
guarantee full respect for human rights, and uphold
the dignity of workers, employees, applicants for
employment, students or those undergoing training,
instruction or education. Towards this end, all forms of
sexual harassment in the employment, education or
training environment are hereby declared unlawful.
Elements of the crime of sexual
harassment:
1. That the offender has authority, influence
or moral ascendancy over the victim in a
work, training or education environment;

2. The offender demands, requests or


otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
victim.
It can be committed by the following:
1. Employer;
2. Employee;
3. Manager;
4. Supervisor;
5. Agent of the employer;
6. Teacher;
7. Instructor;
8. Professor;
9. Coach;
10. Trainor;
11. Any person, who has a authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over the victim.
The gravamen of the offense is not
the violation of the victim’s
sexuality but the abuse of power of
the offender.
Section 3
Work, Education or Training-
related Sexual Harassment
Work related sexual harassment
 The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or
in the employment, reemployment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said
individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the
sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in a way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said
employee;
 The above acts would impair the employee’s
rights or privileges under existing labor
laws; or

 The above acts would result in an


intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
Education/training related sexual
harassment
 Against one who is under the care, custody or
supervision of the offender;
 Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship
or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
 When the sexual favor is made a condition to the
giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors
and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend,
allowance or other benefits, privileges, or
considerations; or
Education/training related sexual
harassment
 When the sexual advances result in an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the student,
trainee or apprentice. Any person who directs or
induces another to commit any act of sexual
harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in
the commission thereof by another without which it
would not have been committed, shall also be held
liable under this Act.
Sexual harassment may take place
 In the premises of the workplace or office or
of the school or training institution;
 In any place where the parties were found as
a result of work or education or training
responsibilities or relations;
 At work or education or training-related
social functions;
Sexual harassment may take place
 While on official business outside the office
or school or training institution or during
work or school or training-related travel;
 At official conferences, fora, symposia or
training sessions; or
 By telephone, cellular phone, fax machine
or electronic mail
Illustrative forms of sexual
harassment
 PHYSICAL
 Malicious Touching;
 Overt sexual advances;
 Gestures with lewd insinuation.

 Verbal
 Requests or demands for sexual favors;
 Lurid remarks

 Others
 Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or writing notes
with sexual underpinnings.
Section 4
Duties of the Employer
 Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations
in consultation with and jointly approved by
the employees or students or trainees, through
their duly designated representatives,
prescribing the procedure for the investigation
or sexual harassment cases and the
administrative sanctions therefor.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to
prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful
acts of sexual harassment.
Duties of the Employer
 Create a committee on decorum and investigation of
cases on sexual harassment. The committee shall
conduct meetings, as the case may be, with other
officers and employees, teachers, instructors,
professors, coaches trainers and students or trainees to
increase understanding and prevent incidents of
sexual harassment. It shall also conduct the
investigation of the alleged cases constituting sexual
harassment.
Section 5
Liabilities
 The employer or head of office, educational training
institution shall be solidarily liable for damage
arising from the acts of sexual harassment committed
in the employment, education or training environment
if the employer or head of office, educational or
training institution is informed of such acts by the
offended party and no immediate action is taken
thereon.
Section 6
Independent action for damages
 Nothing in this Act shall preclude the victim
of work, education or training-related sexual
harassment from instituting a separate and
independent action for damages and other
affirmative relief.
Section 7
Penalties
 Any person who violates the provisions of this Act
shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment
of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6)
months, or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000), or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court.
 Any action arising from the violation of the provision
of this Act shall prescribe in three (3) years.
SAMPLE CASES
Libres vs NLRC (GR No. 123737, May 28, 1999)
Facts:
 Petitioner Carlos G. Libres, an electrical engineer, was holding a managerial position with
National Steel Corporation (NSC) as Assistant Manager. He received a Notice of
Investigation from Assistant Vice President Isidro F. Hynson Jr., his immediate superior,
requesting him to submit a written explanation relative to the charge of sexual
harassment made by Susan D. Capiral, Hynson's secretary. The notice also warned him
that failure to file his written explanation would be construed as a waiver of his right to
be heard. On 14 August 1993 petitioner submitted his written explanation denying the
accusation against him and offering to submit himself for clarificatory interrogation.
 Hynson Jr. conducted an internal investigation to which Libres and Capiral were invited
to ventilate their respective sides of the issue. The MEC, after deliberation, concluded
that the charges against petitioner constituted a violation of Item 2, Table V, of the Plant's
Rules and Regulations. It opined that "touching a female subordinate's hand and
shoulder, caressing her nape and telling other people that Capiral was the one who
hugged and kissed or that she responded to the sexual advances are unauthorized acts
that damaged her honor." The MEC finally concluded that petitioner's acts clearly
constituted sexual harassment as charged and recommended petitioner's suspension for
thirty (30) days without pay.
 Petitioner wrote Melchor Q. Villamor, Vice President for Manufacturing, requesting
reconsideration of his suspension, but the same was denied. On 12 February 1994 the
suspension order was finally implemented.
 Libres filed a complaint for illegal suspension and unjust
discrimination against respondent NSC and its officers, private
respondents herein, before the Labor Arbiter. Citing the failure of the
MEC to grant him audience despite his offer to answer clarificatory
questions. Labor Arbiter Nicodemus G. Palangan however ruled that
due process was properly observed.
 Petitioner argues that the issue of sexual harassment was not
adequately considered as he noted that the finding of the NLRC was
made without proper basis in fact and in law. He maintains that the
NLRC merely adopted the conclusions of the Labor Arbiter.
 He argues strongly that in rejecting his plea, the MEC clearly denied
him an opportunity to be heard and present his side.
 Petitioner assails the failure of the NLRC to strictly apply RA No. 7877
to the instant case. We note however, that petitioner never raised the
applicability of the law in his appeal to the NLRC nor in his motion for
reconsideration. Issues or arguments must chiefly be raised before the
court or agency concerned so as to allow it to pass upon and correct its
mistakes without the intervention of a higher court.
 Issues:
 Was the issue of sexual harassment was not adequately
considered?
 Was petitioner not afforded due process because his
demand for personal confrontation with the victim
was brushed aside by the MEC?
 Ruling:
 Republic Act No. 7877 was not yet in effect at the time of the occurrence of the act
complained of. Hence, the Labor Arbiter have to rely on the MEC report and the common
connotation of sexual harassment as it is generally understood by the public. The NLRC
did not commit any abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
 As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by more exacting work ethics. Public
respondent therefore is correct in its observation that the Labor Arbiter was in fact
lenient in his application of the law and jurisprudence for which petitioner must be
grateful and not gripe against.
 Petitioner further claims that the delay in instituting the complaint shows that it was
only an afterthought. We disagree. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, it could be
expected since Libres was Capiral's immediate superior. Fear of retaliation and backlash,
not to forget the social humiliation and embarrassment
 Petitioner Libres never questioned the veracity of Capiral's allegations. In fact his
narration even corroborated the latter's assertion in several material points. He only
raised issue on the complaint's protracted filing.
 On the question of due process, we find that the requirements thereof were sufficiently
complied with.
 It is undeniable that petitioner was given a Notice of Investigation informing him of the
charge of sexual harassment as well as advising him to submit a written explanation
regarding the matter; that he submitted his written explanation to his superior. Petition
is DISMISSED.
Domingo vs Rayala (GR No.
155831, February 18, 2008)
• Facts:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic
Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual
harassment against Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched
her shoulder, part of her neck then tickled her ears. Rayala
argued that his acts does not constitute sexual harassment
because for it to exist, there must be a demand, request or
requirement of sexual favor.

• Issue:
Whether or not Rayala commited sexual harassment.
 Rulings:
Yes.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof
defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. – Work,
education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any
other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education environment, 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 said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed
when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual
favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to
grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in
a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
. (2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor
laws; or
. (3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for
the employee.
 Even if we were to test Rayala’s acts strictly by the standards set
in Section 3, RA 7877, he would still be administratively liable. It
is true that this provision calls for a “demand, request or
requirement of a sexual favor.” But it is not necessary that the
demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated
in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned,
with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and
squeezing Domingo’s shoulders, running his fingers across her
neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations
with her, giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a
promise of future privileges, and making statements with
unmistakable sexual overtones – all these acts of Rayala resound
with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.
Dr. Rico S. Jacutin vs. People ( GR
No. 140604, March 6, 2002)
 Facts:
 Petitioner, City Health Officer Rico Jacutin of Cagayan de Oro City, was
charged before the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, with the crime of Sexual
Harassment. The accused, a public officer, being then the City Health Officer
of Cagayan de Oro City with salary grade 26 but a high ranking official by
express provision of RA 7975, committing the offense in relation to his official
functions and taking advantage of his position, did there and then, willfully,
unlawfully and criminally, demand, solicit, request sexual favors from Ms. Juliet
Q. Yee, a young 22 year-old woman, single and fresh graduate of Bachelor of
Science in Nursing who was seeking employment in the office of the accused,
namely: by demanding from Ms. Yee that she should, expose her body and
allow her private parts to be mashed and stimulated by the accused, which
sexual favor was made as a condition for the employment of Ms. Yee in the
Family Program of the Office of the accused, thus constituting sexual
harassment
 Upon his arraignment, petitioner pled not guilty to the offense charged; hence,
trial proceeded.
 Issues:
 Petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of sexual
harassment in view of the inapplicability of Republic
Act No. 7877 to the case at bar.
 Ruling:
 The above contentions of petitioner are not meritorious. Section 3 of Republic
Act 7877 provides:
 "SEC. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an
employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, 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 said Act.
 "(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is
committed when:
 "(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or
in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal... to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee."
 Petitioner was the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City, a position he held when
complainant, a newly graduated nurse, saw him to enlist his help in her desire to gain
employment. He did try to show an interest in her plight, her father being a boyhood
friend, but finding no opening suitable for her in his office, he asked her about accepting
a job in a family planning research project. It all started from there; the Sandiganbayan
recited the rest of the story:
 "x x x. Succeeding in convincing the complainant that her physical examination would
be a part of a research, accused asked complainant if she would agree that her private
parts (bolts) would be seen. Accused assured her that with her cooperation in the
research, she would gain knowledge from it. As complainant looked upon the accused
with utmost reverence, respect, and paternal guidance, she agreed to undergo the
physical examination
 While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city personnel, it
should stand to reason, nevertheless, that a recommendation from petitioner in the
appointment of personnel in the municipal health office could carry good
weight. Indeed, petitioner himself would appear to have conveyed, by his words and
actions, an impression that he could facilitate Juliet's employment. Indeed, petitioner
would not have been able to take undue liberalities on the person of Juliet had it not been
for his high position in the City Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City. The findings of
the Sandiganbayan were bolstered by the testimony of Vivian Yu, petitioner's secretary
between 1979 to 1994, of Iryn Lago Salcedo, Public Health Nurse II, and of Farah
Dongallo y Alkuino, a city health nurse, all of whom were said to have likewise been
victims of perverse behavior by petitioner.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9231
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS
OF CHILD LABOR AND AFFORDING
STRONGER PROTECTION FOR THE
WORKING CHILD
What is a child?

jenniferverula.blogsome.com
 A person under eighteen
(18) years of age
 One who is 18 or above but
unable to fully take care or
protect oneself due to a
physical or mental disability
or condition
What is the minimum employable
age?

15

thegiantnapkin.com
years old
Article 137 of the Labor Code
When is a child below 15 employable?

The child works Work permit is obtained from DOLE


directly under the
sole responsibility
of his/her parents
or legal guardian Work done by the child complies with
the hours of work provided by law

The child’s Employer shall provide working child


employment or with access to primary and secondary
participation in education
public
entertainment or No employer shall make a child work
information is during school hours or hinder access to
essential education during school days
Hours of Work
Child is 15 or older but below 18
maximum of 8 hours a day, 40 hours a
week
should not work from 10 pm to 6 am

Child is below 15
maximum of 4 hours a day, 20 hours a week
should not work from 8 pm to 6 am
What forms of employment of
children are prohibited?

Child labor

Prohibited advertisements

Worst forms of child labor


Child Labor

jenniferverula.blogsome.com
 any work or economic
activity
 performed by a child
 that subjects him or her to
any form of exploitation
 or is harmful to his or her
health and safety or
physical, mental or
psychological development.
(IRR, Section 3[b])
Prohibited Advertisements
No child shall be employed as a model in any
advertisement directly or indirectly promoting:
 alcoholic beverages or
intoxicating drinks
 tobacco and its
byproducts

 gambling
 any form of violence or
pornography
globalnanpa.co
Worst Forms of Child Labor

zoriah.net
 Slavery or practices similar
to slavery
 Prostitution or
pornography
 Illegal or illicit activities

odisky.blogspot.com
 Work which is hazardous
or likely to be harmful to
the health, safety or
morals of children
Hazardous or Likely to be
Harmful
 Degrades the dignity of a child as a human being;
 Exposes child to physical, emotional or sexual abuse,
or is found to be highly stressful psychologically or
may prejudice morals;
 Performed underground, underwater or at dangerous
heights;
 Involves use of dangerous machinery, equipment and
tools;
 Exposes the child to physical danger, such as
dangerous feats of balancing, physical strength or
contortion, or requires the manual transport of heavy
loads;
Hazardous or Likely to be
Harmful

worldvision.org
 Performed in an unhealthy
environment exposing the child
to hazardous working
conditions, elements,
substances, etc.;
 Performed under particularly
difficult conditions;
 Exposes the child to biological
agents; or
 Involves the manufacture or
handling of explosives and other
pyrotechnic products.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE WORKING CHILD’S
INCOME
Ownership Usage Administration

The wages, Primarily for his/her Child’s parents or


salaries, earnings support, education guardian shall:
and other income or skills acquisition - administer the
of the child belong child’s income
to him/her in Secondarily, for the - set up Trust Fund
ownership collective needs of
or Savings Account
the family but
should not exceed - render semi-annual
20% of the child’s accounting of the
income Trust Fund to the
DOLE