INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. PURA CALLEJA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES A…

Consolidated on 11
December 1989, these two cases involve the validity of the claim of
immunity by the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) and the
International Rice Research Institute, Inc. (IRRI) from the application of
Philippine labor laws.

I

Facts and Issues

A. G.R. No. 85750 – the International Catholic Migration
Commission (ICMC) Case.

As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight of Vietnamese
refugees fleeing from South Vietnam’s
communist rule confronted the international community.

In response to this crisis, on 23 February 1981, an Agreement was forged between the
Philippine Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
whereby an operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual
resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan (Annex “A,” Rollo, pp. 22-32).

ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to
operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. 
It was incorporated in New York, USA,
at the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in
international humanitarian and voluntary work. 
It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status, Category II.  As an international organization rendering
voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines,
its activities are parallel to those of the International Committee for
Migration (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [DOLE
Records of BLR Case No. A-2-62-87, ICMC 
v. Calleja, Vol. I].

On 14 July 1986,
Trade Unions of the Philippines
and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and
Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file
members employed by ICMC.  The latter
opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization
registered with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.

On 5 February 1987,
Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin
sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal by TUPAS, Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), reversed
the Med-Arbiter’s Decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification
election.  At that time, ICMC’s request for recognition as a specialized agency was
still pending with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF).

Subsequently, however, on 15
July 1988, the Philippine Government, through the DEFORAF, granted
ICMC the status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic
privileges and immunities, as evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement between
the Government and ICMC. (Annex “E”, Petition, Rollo,
pp. 41-43), infra.

ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of the TUPAS Petition
for Certification Election invoking the immunity expressly granted but the same
was denied by respondent BLR Director who, again, ordered the immediate conduct
of a pre-election conference.  ICMC’s two Motions for Reconsideration were denied despite
an opinion rendered by DEFORAF on 17
October 1988 that said BLR Order violated ICMC’s
diplomatic immunity.

Thus, on 24 November
1988, ICMC filed the present Petition for Certiorari with
Preliminary Injunction assailing the BLR Order.

On 28 November 1988,
the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the holding of the
certification election.

On 10 January 1989, the DEFORAF, through its Legal Adviser,
retired Justice Jorge C. Coquia of the Court of
Appeals, filed a Motion for Intervention alleging that, as the highest
executive department with the competence and authority to act on matters
involving diplomatic immunity and privileges, and tasked with the conduct of
Philippine diplomatic and consular relations with foreign governments and UN
organizations, it has a legal interest in the outcome of this case.

Over the opposition of the Solicitor General, the Court allowed
DEFORAF intervention.

On 12 July 1989,
the Second Division gave due course to the ICMC Petition and required the
submittal of memoranda by the parties, which has been complied with.

As initially stated, the issue is whether or not the grant of
diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the
application of Philippine labor laws.

ICMC sustains the affirmative of the proposition citing (1) its
Memorandum of Agreement with the Philippine Government giving it the status of
a specialized agency, (infra); (2) the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21
November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate through Resolution No.
91 on 17 May 1949 (the Philippine Instrument of Ratification was signed by the
President on 30 August 1949 and deposited with the UN on 20 March 1950) infra;
and (3) Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which declares that the
Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land.

Intervenor DEFORAF upholds ICMC’s claim of diplomatic immunity and seeks an affirmance of the DEFORAF determination that the BLR Order
for a certification election among the ICMC employees is violative
of the diplomatic immunity of said organization.

Respondent BLR Director, on the other hand, with whom the
Solicitor General agrees, cites State policy and Philippine labor laws to
justify its assailed Order, particularly, Article II, Section 18 and Article
III, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution, infra; and Articles 243 and 246
of the Labor Code, as amended, ibid. 
In addition, she contends that a certification election is not a
litigation but a mere investigation of a non-adversary, fact-finding
character.  It is not a suit against ICMC,
its property, funds or assets, but is the sole concern of the workers
themselves.

B. G.R. No. 89331- (The International Rice Research Institute
[IRRI] Case).

Before a Decision could be rendered in the ICMC Case, the Third Division,
on 11 December 1989,
resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 89331 pending before it with G.R. No. 85750,
the lower-numbered case pending with the Second Division, upon manifestation by
the Solicitor General that both cases involve similar issues.

The facts disclose that on 9 December 1959, the Philippine Government and the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing
the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) at Los Banos,
Laguna.  It was intended to be an autonomous,
philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization designed to carry
out the principal objective of conducting “basic research on the rice
plant, on all phases of rice production, management, distribution and
utilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economic advantage or
benefit for the people of Asia and other major rice-growing areas through
improvement in quality and quantity of rice.”

Initially, IRRI was organized and registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as a private corporation subject to all laws and
regulations.  However, by virtue of Pres.
Decree No. 1620, promulgated on 19
April 1979, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges
and immunities of an international organization.

The Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and
Agriculture (OLALIA), is a legitimate labor organization with an existing local
union, the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI (Kapisanan, for short) in respondent IRRI.

On 20 April 1987,
the Kapisanan filed a Petition for Direct
Certification Election with Region IV, Regional Office of the Department of
Labor and Employment  (DOLE).

IRRI opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree No. 1620
conferring upon it the status of an international organization and granting it immunity
from all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws.

 On 7 July 1987,
Med-Arbiter Leonardo M. Garcia, upheld the opposition on the basis of Pres.
Decree No. 1620 and dismissed the Petition for Direct Certification.

 On appeal, the BLR
Director, who is the public respondent in the ICMC Case, set aside the
Med-Arbiter’s Order and authorized the calling of a certification election
among the rank-and-file employees of IRRI. 
Said Director relied on Article 243 of the Labor Code, as amended, infra,
and Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution,^[1]
and held that “the immunities and privileges granted to IRRI do not
include exemption from coverage of our Labor Laws.” Reconsideration sought
by IRRI was denied.

On appeal, the Secretary of Labor, in a Resolution of 5 July
1989, set aside the BLR Director’s Order, dismissed the Petition for
Certification Election, and held that the grant of specialized agency status by
the Philippine Government to the IRRI bars DOLE from assuming and exercising
jurisdiction over IRRI.  Said Resolution
reads in part as follows:

“Presidential Decree No. 1620 which grants to the IRRI the
status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international
organization is clear and explicit.  It
provides in categorical terms that:

“Art. 3 — The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal,
civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as immunity has been
expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institution or his authorized
representative.

“Verily, unless and until the Institute expressly waives its
immunity, no summons, subpoena, orders, decisions or proceedings ordered by any
court or administrative or quasi-judicial agency are enforceable as against the
Institute.  In the case at bar there was
no such waiver made by the Director-General of the Institute.  Indeed, the Institute, at the very first
opportunity already vehemently questioned the jurisdiction of this Department
by filing an ex-parte motion to dismiss the
case.”

Hence, the present Petition for Certiorari filed by Kapisanan alleging grave abuse of discretion by respondent
Secretary of Labor in upholding IRRI’s diplomatic
immunity.

The Third Division, to which the case was originally assigned,
required the respondents to comment on the petition.  In a Manifestation filed on 4 August 1990,
the Secretary of Labor declared that it was “not adopting as
his own” the decision of the BLR Director in the ICMC Case
as well as the Comment of the Solicitor General sustaining said Director.  The last pleading was filed by IRRI on 14 August 1990.

Instead of a Comment, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation
and Motion praying that he be excused from filing a comment “it appearing
that in the earlier case of International Catholic Migration Commission v.
Hon. Pura Calleja, G.R. No.
85750, the Office of the Solicitor General had sustained the stand of
Director Calleja on the very same issue now before
it, which position has been superseded by respondent Secretary of Labor in G.
R. No. 89331,” the present case. 
The Court acceded to the Solicitor General’s prayer.

The Court is now asked to rule upon whether or not the Secretary
of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for
Certification Election filed by Kapisanan.

Kapisanan contends that Article 3 of
Pres. Decree No. 1620 granting IRRI the status, privileges, prerogatives and
immunities of an international organization, invoked by the Secretary of Labor,
is unconstitutional in so far as it deprives the Filipino workers of their
fundamental and constitutional right to form trade unions for the purpose of
collective bargaining as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

A procedural issue is also raised.  Kapisanan faults
respondent Secretary of Labor for entertaining IRRI’s
appeal from the Order of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations
directing the holding of a certification election.  Kapisanan contends
that pursuant to Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Rule V^[2]
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the Order of the BLR Director
had become final and unappealable and that,
therefore, the Secretary of Labor had no more jurisdiction over the said
appeal.

On the other hand, in entertaining the appeal, the Secretary of
Labor relied en Section 25 of Rep. Act No. 6715, which took effect on 21 March
1989, providing for the direct filing of appeal from the Med-Arbiter to the
Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment instead of to the Director of
the Bureau of Labor Relations in cases involving certification election orders.

III

Findings in Both
Cases.

There can be no question that diplomatic immunity has, in fact,
been granted ICMC and IRRI.

Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine
Government and ICMC provides that ICMC shall have a status “similar to
that of a specialized agency.” Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by
the UN General Assembly on 21
November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate through
Resolution No. 19 on 17 May 1949,
explicitly provides:

“Article III, Section 4. 
The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located
and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal
process except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived
their immunity.  It is, however,
understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of
execution.”

Sec. 5.  – The premises of
the specialized agencies shall be inviolable. 
The property and assets of the specialized agencies, wherever located
and by whomsoever held shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation,
expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive,
administrative, judicial or legislative action.” (Emphasis ours).

IRRI is similarly situated. 
Pres. Decree No. 1620, Article 3, is explicit in its grant of immunity,
thus:

“Article 3.  Immunity
from Legal Process.  – The Institute
shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except
insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the Director-General of
the Institute or his authorized representatives.”

Thus it is that the DEFORAF, through its Legal Adviser, sustained
ICMC’s invocation of immunity when in a Memorandum,
dated 17 October 1988, it expressed the view that “the Order of the
Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated 21 September 1988 far the
conduct of Certification Election within ICMC violates the diplomatic immunity
of the organization.” Similarly, in respect of IRRI, the DEFORAF speaking
through The Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Jose D. Ingles, in a letter,
dated 17 June 1987, to the
Secretary of Labor, maintained that “IRRI enjoys immunity from the
jurisdiction of DOLE in this particular instance.”

The foregoing opinions constitute a categorical recognition by
the Executive Branch of the Government that ICMC and IRRI enjoy immunities
accorded to international organizations, which determination has been held to
be a political question conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarrass a
political department of Government.

“It is a recognized principle of international law and under
our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a
political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by
the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic
immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government
as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim
immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the
government …  or other officer acting
under his direction.  Hence, in adherence
to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction …
as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign
relations, it is accepted doctrine that in such cases the judicial department
of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not
embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.”^[3]

A brief look into the nature of international organizations and
specialized agencies is in order.  The
term “international organization” is generally used to describe an
organization set up by agreement between two or more states.^[4] Under
contemporary international law, such organizations are endowed with some degree
of international legal personality^[5]
such that they are capable of exercising specific rights, duties and powers.^[6]
They are organized mainly as a means for conducting general international
business in which the member states have an interest.^[7]
The United Nations, for instance, is an international organization dedicated to
the propagation of world peace.

“Specialized agencies” are international organizations
having functions in particular fields. 
The term appears in Articles 57^[8]
and 63^[9]
of the Charter of the United Nations:

“The Charter, while it invests the United Nations with the
general task of promoting progress and international cooperation in economic,
social, health, cultural, educational and related matters, contemplates that
these tasks will be mainly fulfilled not by organs of the United Nations itself
but by autonomous international organizations established by inter-governmental
agreements outside the United Nations. 
There are now many such international agencies having functions in many
different fields, e.g. in posts, telecommunications, railways, canals, rivers,
sea transport, civil avaition, meteorology, atomic
energy, finance, trade, education and culture, health and refugees.  Some are virtually world-wide in their
membership, some are regional or otherwise limited in their membership.  The Charter provides that those agencies
which have ‘wide international responsibilities’ are to be brought into
relationship with the United Nations by agreements entered into between them
and the Economic and Social Council, are then to be known as ‘specialized
agencies.’”^[10]

The rapid growth of international organizations under
contemporary international law has paved the way for the development of the
concept of international immunities.

“It is now usual for the constitutions of international
organizations to contain provisions conferring certain immunities on the
organizations themselves, representatives of their member states and persons
acting on behalf of the organizations.  A
series of conventions, agreements and protocols defining the immunities of
various international organizations in relation to their members generally are
now widely in force; x  x  x“^[11]

There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of
international immunities to international organizations.  These principles, contained the ILO
Memorandum are stated thus:  1) international
institutions should have a status which protects them against control or
interference by any one government in the performance of functions for the
effective discharge of which they are responsible to democratically constituted
international bodies in which all the nations concerned are represented; 2) no
country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal
charges on common international funds; and 3) the international organization
should, as a collectivity of States members, be accorded the facilities for the
conduct of its official business customarily extended to each other by its
individual member States.^[12]
The theory behind all three propositions is said to be essentially
institutional in character.  “It is
not concerned with the status, dignity or privileges of individuals, but with
the elements of functional independence necessary to free international
institutions from national control and to enable them to discharge their
responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their members.”^[13]
The raison d’ etre for these
immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the
agencies concerned.

The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is
clearly necessitated by their international character and respective
purposes.  The objective is to avoid the
danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal
workings.  The exercise of jurisdiction
by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of
immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in
accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by
the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to
ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.

ICMC’s and IRRI’s
immunity from local jurisdiction by no means deprives labor of its basic
rights, which are guaranteed by Article II, Section 18,^[14]
Article III, Section 8,^[15]
and Article XIII, Section 3 (supra), of the 1987 Constitution; and implemented
by Articles 243 and 246 of the Labor Code,^[16]
relied on by the BLR Director and by Kapisanan.

For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are
disputes to be settled.  Section 31 of
the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of
the United Nations^[17]
provides that “each specialized agency shall make provision for
appropriate modes of settlement of:  (a)
disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to
which the specialized agency is a party.” Moreover, pursuant to Article IV
of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC and the Philippine Government,
whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to
withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded.  Thus:

“Article IV. 
Cooperation with Government Authorities. 
– 1.  The Commission shall
cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities of the Government to
ensure the observance of Philippine laws, rules and regulations, facilitate the
proper administration of justice and prevent the occurrences of any abuse of
the privileges and immunities granted its officials and alien employees in
Article III of this Agreement to the Commission.

“2. In the event that the Government determines that there has
been an abuse of the privileges and immunities granted under this Agreement,
consultations shall be held between the Government and the Commission to
determine whether any such abuse has occurred and, if so, the Government shall
withdraw the privileges and immunities granted the Commission and its
officials.”

Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of
dispute with management as, in fact, there had been organized a forum for
better management-employee relationship as evidenced by the formation of the
Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM) wherein “both management
and employees were and still are represented for purposes of maintaining mutual
and beneficial cooperation between IRRI and its employees.” The existence
of this Union factually and tellingly belies the
argument that Pres. Decree No. 1620, which grants to IRRI the status,
privileges and immunities of an international organization, deprives its
employees of the right to self-organization.

The immunity granted being “from every form of legal process
except in so far as in any particular case they have expressly waived their
immunity,” it is inaccurate to state that a certification election is
beyond the scope of that immunity for the reason that it is not a suit against
ICMC.  A certification election cannot be
viewed as an independent or isolated process. 
It could trigger off a series of events in the collective bargaining
process together with related incidents and/or concerted activities, which
could inevitably involve ICMC in the “legal process,” which includes
“any penal, civil and administrative proceedings.” The eventuality of
Court litigation is neither remote and from which international organizations
are precisely shielded to safeguard them from the disruption of their
functions.  Clauses on jurisdictional
immunity are said to be standard provisions in the constitutions of
international organizations.  “The
immunity covers the organization concerned, its property and its assets.  It is equally applicable to proceedings in
personam and proceedings in rem.”^[18]

We take note of a Manifestation, dated 28 September 1989, in the
ICMC Case (p. 161, Rollo), wherein TUPAS calls
attention to the case entitled “International Catholic Migration
Commission v. NLRC, et als., (G. R. No. 72222, 30
January 1989, 169 SCRA 606), and claims that, having taken cognizance of that
dispute (on the issue of payment of salary for the unexpired portion of a
six-month probationary employment), the Court is now estopped
from passing upon the question of DOLE jurisdiction over ICMC.

We find no merit to said submission.  Not only did the facts of said controversy
occur between 1983-1985, or before the grant to ICMC on 15 July 1988 of the
status of a specialized agency with corresponding immunities, but also because
ICMC in that case did not invoke its immunity and, therefore, may be deemed to
have waived it, assuming that during that period (1983-1985) it was tacitly
recognized as enjoying such immunity.

Anent the procedural issue raised in the IRRI Case, suffice it to
state that the Decision of the BLR Director, dated 15 February 1989, had not become final because of
a Motion for Reconsideration filed by IRRI. 
Said Motion was acted upon only on 30 March 1989 when Rep. Act No. 6715,
which provides for direct appeals from the Orders of the Med-Arbiter to the
Secretary of Labor in certification election cases either from the order or the
results of the election itself, was already in effect, specifically since 21
March 1989.  Hence, no grave abuse of
discretion may be imputed to respondent Secretary of labor in his assumption of
appellate jurisdiction, contrary to Kapisanan’s
allegations.  The pertinent portion of
that law provides:

“Article 259.  – Any
party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election as
determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof
established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the
election have been violated.  Such appeal
shall be decided within 15 calendar days” (Emphasis ours).

En passant, the Court is gratified to note that the
heretofore antagonistic positions assumed by two departments of the executive
branch of government have been rectified and the resultant embarrassment to the
Philippine Government in the eyes of the international community now,
hopefully, effaced.

WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 85750 (the ICMC Case), the Petition
is GRANTED, the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations for certification
election is SET ASIDE, and the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is
made PERMANENT.

In G.R. No. 89331 (the IRRI Case), the Petition is DISMISSED, no
grave abuse of discretion having been committed by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment in dismissing the Petition for Certification Election.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

 Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Paras, J., on leave.

^[1]
Article XIII, Section 3.  The State shall
afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment opportunities for all.  It shall guarantee the rights of all workers
to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful
concerted activities including the right to strike in accordance with law.  They shall be entitled to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work and a living wage. 
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.

^[2]
RULE V.  Section 7.  Appeal – Any aggrieved party may appeal the
order of the Med-Arbiter to the Bureau only on the following grounds:  a) grave abuse of discretion and b) gross
incompetence.  The appeal shall
specifically state the grounds relied upon by the appellant with supporting
memorandum.

Section 8.  Where to file appeal – The appellant shall
file his appeal which shall be under oath, in the Regional Office where the
case originated, copy furnished the appellee.

Section
9.  Period to Appeal.  The appeal shall be filed within ten (10)
working days from receipt of the Order by the appellant.  Likewise, the appellee
shall file his answer thereto within ten (10) working days from receipt of the
appeal.  The Regional Director shall
immediately forward the entire records of the case to the Bureau.

Section 10.  – Decision of the Bureau is final and unappealable.  – The
Bureau shall have twenty (20) working days within which to decide the appeal
from receipt of the records of the case. 
The decision of the Bureau in all cases shall be final and unappealable.

^[3] World
Health Organization and Dr. Leonce Verstuyft v. Hon. Benjamin Aquino,
et. al. L-35131, 29 November 1972,
48 SCRA 242.

^[4]
MICHAEL AKEHURST, A MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW (1984) at 69.

^[5]
The leading judicial authority on the personality of international
organizations is the advisory opinion given by the ICJ in the Reparation for
Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations Case  ([1949] I.C.J. Rep 174) where the Court
recognized the UN’s international personality.

^[6] M.
AKEHURST, supra, at 70.

^[7] J.
L. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS (1963) at 95.

^[8]
Article 57.  – 1.  The various specialized agencies, established
by intergovernmental agreement and having wide international responsibilities,
as defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural,
educational, health, and related fields, shall be brought into relationship
with the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 63.

 2.  Such
agencies thus brought into relationship with the United Nations are hereinafter
referred to as specialized agencies.

^[9]
Article 63.  – 1.  The Economic and Social Council may enter
into agreements with any of the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining
the terms on which the agency concerned shall be brought into relationship with
the United Nations.  Such agreements
shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly.

2.  It may co-ordinate of the activities of the
specialized agencies through consultation with and recommendations to such
agencies and through recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members
of the United Nations.

^[10]
BRIERLY, supra at 121-122.

^[11]
C. WILFRED JENKS, INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES (1961) at 2-3.

^[12] Ibid.,
at 17.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14]
Article II, Section 18.  The State
affirms labor as a primary social economic force.  It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.

^[15]
Article III, Section 8.  The right of the
people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not
be abridged.

^[16]
Article 243.  Coverage and Employees’
Right to Self-Organization.  – All
persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in
religious, charitable, medical or educational institutions whether operating
for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join
or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective
bargaining.  Ambulant, intermittent and
itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any
define employees may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and
protection.

Article
246.  Non-abridgement of Right to
Self-organization.  – It shall be
unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly
interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to
self-organization.  Such right shall
include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purpose
of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose or for their mutual
aid and protection, subject to the provisions of Article 264 of this Code.

^[17]
This Convention, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 21, 1947, was concurred in by the
Philippine Senate under Senate Resolution No. 21, dated 17 May 1949. 
The Philippine Instrument of Ratification was signed by the Philippine
President on 21 February 1959.  (Vol. 1, Phil. Treaty Series, p. 621).

^[18]
JENKS, supra at 38.