Public Servants’ Right to Protest: Balancing Free Assembly and the Duty to Serve

TLDR: Public school teachers in the Philippines have the right to peaceably assemble, but this right is not absolute. Participating in mass actions that disrupt classes and defy return-to-work orders is considered an illegal strike and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, leading to disciplinary actions like suspension without back pay. This case clarifies the boundaries of protest for government employees, emphasizing the primacy of public service and the limitations on exercising rights in a way that harms the public interest.

G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221, March 25, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine parents anxiously waiting for news about their children’s education, only to find out that classes are suspended due to teachers’ protests. This scenario became a stark reality in the Philippines in September and October 1990 when public school teachers staged mass actions to demand better working conditions and pay. The Supreme Court case of De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals arose from these events, tackling a crucial question: Where is the line between a public servant’s right to protest and their duty to provide uninterrupted public service?

This case involved numerous public school teachers who participated in mass actions, leading to their dismissal by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). The teachers argued they were merely exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. The Supreme Court, however, had to determine if these mass actions constituted an illegal strike and if the disciplinary actions against the teachers were justified.

LEGAL CONTEXT: STRIKES, PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE

Philippine law recognizes the right to freedom of assembly and petition, enshrined in Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which states, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” However, this right is not absolute, especially for government employees.

While the right to strike is recognized for workers in the private sector, it is significantly restricted for those in government service. Philippine law, particularly Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree of the Philippines) and later the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), outlines the disciplinary actions for government employees who violate civil service rules, including those related to unauthorized absences and neglect of duty.

Crucially, jurisprudence has established that mass actions by public school teachers, like the ones in 1990, can be considered illegal strikes. In the earlier case of Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr., the Supreme Court already defined these mass actions as “to all intents and purposes a strike… constitut[ing] a concealed and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers’ duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons.” This precedent set the stage for how the Court would view the teachers’ actions in the De la Cruz case.

The concept of “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” is also central. This administrative offense, often cited in cases involving government employees, covers actions that, while not necessarily grave offenses like corruption, nonetheless harm the public’s perception and trust in government service. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 30 s. 1989 provides guidelines for penalties in administrative cases, including this offense.

CASE BREAKDOWN: FROM DISMISSAL TO SUSPENSION

The story of De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals unfolds as follows:

1. Mass Actions and Dismissal: In September and October 1990, numerous public school teachers in Metro Manila participated in mass actions to protest economic grievances. The Secretary of DECS, Isidro Cariño, issued decisions dismissing these teachers based on reports from school principals. The grounds for dismissal included grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil Service Law, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and absence without official leave (AWOL).
2. Appeals to MSPB and CSC: The dismissed teachers appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and subsequently to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
3. CSC Decision: Reduced Penalty: In 1993, the CSC softened the blow, finding the teachers guilty only of “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.” The dismissal was reduced to a six-month suspension, and the CSC ordered their reinstatement without back wages due to the prolonged period they were out of service.
4. Appeals to the Court of Appeals (CA): Dissatisfied, the teachers elevated their case to the Court of Appeals via petitions for certiorari. The CA initially dismissed these petitions, upholding the CSC’s decision. The CA emphasized that the teachers’ grievances did not justify abandoning their classes and defying return-to-work orders. It also affirmed the legality of the immediate implementation of the dismissal orders under the Administrative Code and Civil Service Law.
5. Supreme Court Review: Upholding the CA and CSC: The teachers then brought their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were simply exercising their right to peaceful assembly and that their actions were not actually strikes as classes were not disrupted (due to substitute teachers). The Supreme Court consolidated these cases and ultimately denied the petitions, affirming the CA’s decisions.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning heavily relied on the principle of stare decisis, adhering to its previous rulings in similar cases, particularly Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr. The Court reiterated that:

“[T]he mass actions of September/October 1990 staged by Metro Manila public school teachers ‘amounted to a strike in every sense of the term, constituting as they did, a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of or absence from work which it was said teachers’ sworn duty to perform, carried out for essentially economic reasons…”

The Court further clarified that while teachers have the right to assemble, this right has limits, especially when it disrupts essential public services like education. The Court stated:

“Had the teachers availed of their free time – recess, after classes, weekends or holidays – to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one – not the DECS, the CSC or even the Supreme Court – could have held them liable for their participation in the mass actions.”

The argument that classes were not disrupted due to substitute teachers was also rejected, as the Court pointed out that the teachers were still liable for the intended disruption, regardless of remedial actions taken by the DECS.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS

De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals serves as a clear reminder to all government employees in the Philippines about the boundaries of their right to protest. While they are citizens with constitutional rights, their employment carries a special duty to the public. Here are some key practical implications:

• Right to Assemble, but Not to Strike: Public sector employees have the right to peaceably assemble and petition, but engaging in strikes – especially those that disrupt essential public services – is generally illegal and subject to disciplinary action.
• Timing and Manner Matter: Protests should be conducted outside of official working hours and should not involve abandoning duties. Using free time like weekends or after-office hours for demonstrations is a more legally sound approach.
• Economic Grievances Not Justification for Illegal Strikes: Even if the reasons for protest are valid (like demands for better pay or working conditions), resorting to illegal strikes is not an acceptable means for government employees.
• Disruption of Public Service is Key: The core issue is not just the act of protesting, but whether the protest disrupts public service. Actions that directly and negatively impact the delivery of essential services are more likely to be penalized.
• Immediate Implementation of Dismissal Orders: In this case, the Court upheld the immediate implementation of dismissal orders by the DECS Secretary, highlighting that such actions are legally permissible, even pending appeal, under existing civil service rules.

Key Lessons:

• Know Your Rights and Limits: Public servants need to be aware of their right to assembly but also understand the limitations imposed by their position in government service.
• Choose Legal Avenues for Protest: Explore legal channels for expressing grievances, such as dialogues, petitions during free time, and engaging with unions or employee associations.
• Prioritize Public Service: Always prioritize the delivery of public service. Actions that disrupt this service, even for a cause, can have serious consequences.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: Can government employees in the Philippines ever go on strike?

A: Generally, no. The right to strike is significantly limited for government employees, especially those in essential services. Mass actions that disrupt public services are typically considered illegal strikes.

Q2: What is “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service”?

A: It’s an administrative offense covering actions by government employees that, while not necessarily major crimes, harm the public’s trust and confidence in government service. Participating in illegal strikes falls under this category.

Q3: If a government employee is suspended for participating in a protest, will they receive back pay?

A: Generally not, especially if the suspension is upheld and they are found guilty of an offense like conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Back pay is usually only granted if the employee is exonerated or unjustly suspended.

Q4: Are there legal ways for government employees to express their grievances?

A: Yes. Government employees can express grievances through legal means such as dialogues with superiors, submitting petitions during non-working hours, and engaging with employee unions or associations. Peaceful assemblies outside of work hours are also generally permissible.

Q5: What penalties can government employees face for participating in illegal strikes?

A: Penalties can range from suspension to dismissal, depending on the severity of the offense and civil service rules. In this case, the teachers initially faced dismissal, which was later reduced to suspension by the CSC.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and civil service regulations in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.