Tensions flared between the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and Kamanggagawa Partylist Rep. Eli San Fernando during deliberations on the proposed budget of the department as the latter raised concerns over the suspended Metro Manila wage hike.

San Fernando, a persistent advocate of workers rights, questioned why Wage Order No. 27 which would have increased the minimum wage around the National Capital Region by P60 had yet to be implemented given the absence of a bond of P10 billion from the petitioner.

Adding on to his inquiry, the lawmaker mentioned that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)–which serves as the counsel of DOLE–said that due to the lack of a bond, there was nothing that was stopping the labor agency from enforcing the wage increase.

Tolentino, for his part, echoed the position of the OSG while also referencing an announcement from the Supreme Court but did not provide a concrete answer when it came to his actual position on the preliminary injunction.

The cabinet member instead said that the matter would be up to the decision of the court which had jurisdiction over the case, citing legal precedent that was established in previous cases before the high court.

“It is not DOLE, it is not the litigants that will decide if the process is wrong. The court will decide on this. They have the jurisdiction, courts have the discretion over the bond and integrity of the bond, and that does not automatically void any previous injunction,” Tolentino explained.

He further maintained that a legal principle like the Doctrine of Self-Help could not be applied to the intervention that was made on the wage increase, noting that such a provision was only applicable to individuals and not to entities such as government agencies.

Even with Tolentino’s explanation, San Fernando insisted that the lack of a bond meant that the injunction that was sought could be put into effect.

The lawmaker cited a statement that was indicated in the order of the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 152, wherein Judge Marie Joyce Manongsong wrote: “Let a preliminary injunction be issued upon posting a bond of ten billion pesos.”

Tolentino contested, however, stating that he had documents which indicated that an Order of Injunction was issued which he deemed as a “substantial order.”

With the paperwork, he said that DOLE had filed a motion to resolve on the part of the agency in order to provide a ruling on the issue.

Tolentino said that they were still keen on implementing the order but said that they did not want to be cited in contempt in accordance with Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

“There is a process, particularly when it comes to the court. But everything you said, I understand that,” Tolentino said.

Pushing on with his point, San Fernando argued that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case in the first place and that they had since proceeded to the Supreme Court, urging them to step in to the issue.

Considering everything that Tolentino said, the lawmaker deduced that it meant that the labor agency had no intention of implementing the wage order any time soon.

“So, what DOLE is saying right now is, in your [Tolentino] lengthy explanation, at the end of it all, you are saying that you will not implement the wage increase,” he said.

‘No right to ask for budget’

As the exchange between the officials seemingly led to nowhere as neither party agreed on an amenable resolution, San Fernando moved to defer deliberations for the proposed budget of DOLE as he claimed that the agency could not back minimum wage workers in the country.

“If you can not defend workers, you have no right to ask for a budget that comes from the sweat, blood, and sacrifice of minimum wage workers,” a frustrated San Fernando said.

“And with that, Mr. Chair, I move to defer the committee consideration of the budget of DOLE for fiscal year 2027,” he pleaded.

The motion was seconded by Akbayan Partylist Rep. Perci Cendana but faced an objection from Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez.

Rodriguez said that while he supported his “very impassioned” colleague, he said that he would rather for Congress to file an administrative case against the judge who issued the writ of injunction without the posting of a bond.

Given the objection to the motion, Appropriations panel Vice Chairperson Rommel Angara divided the panel to vote on the motion of San Fernando.

The motion was subsequently denied as 37 lawmakers were not in favor of deferring deliberations while only seven were in favor of San Fernando’s motion.