Rough flying

The amazing recall by the Supreme Court of its Sept. 7 resolution ordering the reinstatement of 1,400 laid-off flight attendants of Philippine Airlines couldn’t have come at a worse time, with members of PAL’s other union still in the thick of protesting their own layoffs. The way it looks, one might conclude that the management of the flag carrier is waging a to-the-death battle with its labor force, with not a little help from the high court.

Is that an unfair perception? To be sure, the full court—and no longer only the Special Third Division—has taken up the 13-year-old case involving the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (Fasap) and has made it a priority, meaning it will also be passed on by the leading lights of the tribunal instead of only a few. But that fact has been snowed under by other facts, among which is that the avowed “final” resolution was recalled on the basis of a “mere” letter from PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza pointing out the technicality that the Special Third Division, and not the Second Division, should have ruled on the matter. Also, that the order of reinstatement (and full payment of back wages) of the Fasap members was issued by the National Labor Relations Commission in July 2000 (which it reversed in May 2004), by the Supreme Court in July 2008, and again by the high court on Sept. 7, 2011, with the statement that “no further pleadings shall be entertained.”

Add to the volatile mix the hotshot image of PAL’s lawyer—an image that took shape in his days as solicitor general and justice minister under the Marcos dictatorship and flourished when he became legal counsel of the Marcoses and assorted cronies—and the perception of PAL management’s favored position becomes understandable. Which is truly worrisome, because then the Supreme Court runs the grave risk of becoming, in the public eye, ultimately unreachable by workers and the common folk, mere denizens of the ivory tower, no longer Lady Justice in a blindfold—or, as Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago so piquantly put it, “teetering on the abyss of incredulity.”

Santiago, who, to be understated about it, happens to know her law, has also cited the high court’s apparent violation of its internal rules: that no second motion of reconsideration may be filed without its express approval, and only when the original resolution “is legally erroneous, patently unjust, or will probably result in irreparable damage or injury.”  Did Estelito Mendoza’s letter qualify as a motion, and did the tribunal’s recall of the Sept. 7 resolution result from any of the instances cited by Santiago?

It is important that the Supreme Court be seen as hewing de numero to these stipulations, particularly in these times when the memory of its startling flip-flops regarding the cityhood of certain towns remains fresh. It is equally important that the justices be able to show the public the wisdom of their ultimate decision on the layoff of the Fasap members that PAL management claimed in June 1998 was a move to avert bankruptcy. Would the tribunal’s ultimate decision be the opposite of the one in July 2008, when it said that PAL management was unable to prove being so trapped in the red as to make the layoffs necessary and inevitable?

The labor issue concerning the airline owned by tycoon Lucio Tan and its workers has resulted in the occurrence of mass actions causing disruptions in its flying schedules and untold inconveniences to passengers—and, because of the street protests, motorists and pedestrians as well. (We’re not even mentioning the lost revenues in tourism.) The conflict is also double-barreled, concerning as it does not only Fasap but also the PAL Employees Association (Palea), which continues to protest the layoff of 2,600 workers in the call center reservations, catering, and ground handling service department.

The Supreme Court is called upon to display its majesty in resolving the layoff of the Fasap members, which involves, along with the question of the legality of the act, the underlying issues of ageism and sexism. Let it do so quickly. Palea is awaiting the action on its own case by the Court of Appeals even as it wages an apparent losing battle against the insidious practice of labor contractualization.