EO 97 and EO 23 Freedom of Association: Overkill?

President Marcos Jr. signed EO 97 on 19 September 2025, his second response after EO 23 of 2023 to the ILO’s High-Level Tripartite Mission, or HLTM, which repeatedly flags issues of violence, red-tagging, and curbs on trade union rights.

Time and again, the HLTM presses for decisive steps to end violence tied to union activity, accountability for aggressors, functioning monitoring systems, and the assurance that every worker may organize without fear.

EOs 23 and 97 appear largely superfluous, as the freedom of association has always been held in high regard in the Philippines. It is enshrined in the Constitution, codified in the Labor Code, protected under ratified ILO conventions, and reinforced through inter-agency guidelines and judicial precedents. Its importance cannot be overstated: it empowers workers to organize, speak collectively, and negotiate for better conditions.

Yet, there is a growing danger in elevating this one right to untouchable status while overlooking its natural counterpart of responsibility.

And rights glorified and overplayed without balance can become tools of oppression rather than freedom. Laws and executive orders, such as EOs 23 and 97, while well-intentioned, risk redundancy precisely because the right they reinforce is already robustly protected. 

Undoubtedly, freedom of association is a fundamental right but like any right it is not absolute. 

Overstressing the freedom of association could undermine and diminish the importance of responsible action — causing chaos. Without responsibility, the exercise of freedom of association can become a source of division instead of solidarity. Overstressing rights without restraint risks degenerating such rights into tools of entitlement, coercion, or conflict.

Put plainly, rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.

Classic moral reflection has always upheld the principle that every right has a corresponding responsibility.

Protecting freedom of association without emphasizing ethical use, respect for others, and the obligations inherent in a collective society is like giving someone a car without teaching them the traffic rules. A collision is inevitable.

Policymakers and society at large must cultivate this balance. Laws should not only guarantee rights but also clarify duties, promote responsible exercise, and anticipate conflicts. Education, dialogue, and institutional checks are essential to ensuring that freedom does not morph into coercion, disruption, or stagnation.

Ultimately, the true measure of a right is not in its sacredness but in its responsible application and coexistence with other rights and obligations. A society that overstresses rights while neglecting responsibility risks fostering entitlement, polarization, and inefficiency. Freedom without accountability is tyranny in disguise.

At some point, policies can cross the fine line between reinforcement and redundancy. This is the danger with EOs 23 and 97. Adding more layers may create the illusion of progress, yet in practice, it risks becoming little more than policy overreach.

Such overemphasis on a single right carries unintended consequences. By elevating freedom of association above all else, we risk crowding out the equally important responsibilities that sustain a balanced labor environment: fair management prerogatives, the rights of non-union workers, and the supreme interest of industrial peace. Rights do not exist in isolation; they must coexist with duties. 

The irony is that excessive intervention often weakens the very protections it aims to uphold. Duplicative mandates blur lines of accountability among agencies, making enforcement uneven and confusing. Employers and workers alike end up navigating a maze of overlapping policies rather than benefiting from a clear, coherent framework.

True protection lies not in multiplying decrees but in cultivating a culture of responsible exercise. 

Rights should empower, not entitle; strengthen, not suffocate. The challenge for policymakers, then, is not how many executive orders they can issue, but how effectively they can balance freedom with responsibility.