Php 70.00 Vol. 47 No. 07 • July 2013 - IMPACT Magazine Online!

Security of Tenu
Contractualiza
COVER
STORY
“I have heard the cry of my people, because
they are held in bondage, and I have
remembered my covenant” (Ex. 6:5).
By Msgr. Arnel Lagarejos
The ascendancy of Pope Francis
to the papacy has given much
hope to the Church especially
his perceptible and profound concern
for the poor. One of the first words
he has spoken was, “How I long for
a poor Church for the poor!”
With these words spoken after
being elected pope, Jorge Bergoglio
underscored a theme that continues
to be front-and-center of his papacy.
Not surprisingly, such statements
demonstrate that Pope Francis wants
Catholics to devote greater attention
to poverty-alleviation. 1
PCP-II
Poverty alleviation is one of the
visions of the Philippine Catholic
Church. During the Second Plenary
Council of the Philippines, the Philippine
Church boldly proclaimed:
“As we approach the year 2000, in
order to credibly witness to the love
of God in Christ Jesus, Christ bids
this community . . . the laity, religious
and clergy of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines to be Church of the
poor” 2 (PCP 124). Since PCP-II, the
expression, Church of the poor, has
become a central theme and the main
thrust of the Philippine Church. And
one of the most important aspects of
being a Church of the Poor is for the
Church to be able to help the poor
people rise up from the bondage
of poverty, become self-sufficient
and regain their dignity as children
of God. 3
However more than twenty
years after PCP II, it is sad to note
that the Philippine Church has not
really taken any major concrete
step towards alleviating poverty in
the country. Whereas the domestic
anti-poverty program of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops
has approved more than $9 million
in grants to help alleviate poverty
and injustice throughout the United
States, 4 the Philippine Church has
not allocated anything to promote
its vision of becoming a Church of
the Poor and alleviating the severe
poverty that majority of our people
are experiencing for decades. The
vision of Church of the Poor has
just remained a rhetoric. Twenty
years after PCP-II, the incidence of
poverty in the Philippines remained
as high as ever.
The Evil of Contractualization
Indeed poverty is such a complex
phenomenon and there are
numerous factors that lead to the
continuing bondage to poverty of
majority of our people. But the fact
cannot be denied, that despite the
unprecedented growth rate of 7.6%
in our Gross National Product (GDP)
which our government officials are
constantly boasting of, the resultant
effect of the massive GDP growth has
not trickled to the poor masses. And
one of the main reasons is that our
poor workers still toil for very low
wages, and are blatantly subjected
to unfair labor practices, one of
which is the contractualization and
outsourcing of regular jobs.
Contractualization is a practice
wherein laborers are given only
5-month contracts to keep them
from becoming regular employees
because according to the Philippine
Labor Law, a laborer who has completed
six months of employment
automatically becomes a permanent
employee. These contractual employees
are not given any benefit
normally given to regular employees
such as SSS, Philhealth or Pag-Ibig.
In most cases, since they are not yet
regular employees, they are given
salaries way below the prescribed
salary by the minimum wage law.
Thus, the practice of employers is
to terminate the laborer after five
months, with or without a just cause.
Now how can a person rise up from
poverty and become self sufficient if
he finds himself without a job every
after five months of work? This is
the reason why contractual workers
become perennially poor.
The main point is, labor contractualization
is illegal, unconstitutional
and immoral. The practice
of using agency contractual labor is
illegal according to provisions of
Philippine labor laws. Article 279
of the Labor Code of the Philippines
speaks of Security of Tenure for
employees. It states that “In cases of
regular employment, the employer
shall not terminate the services of an
16 IMPACT • July 2013