The Supreme Court (SC) has declared unconstitutional the compulsory retirement age of the flight attendants of the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) at 55 years old for female and 60 years old for male. In a unanimous full court decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC ruled that the compulsory retirement age provision is “void for lack of basis, discriminating against women, and contrary to laws, international convention, and public policy.” Declared unconstitutional was Section 144(A) of the 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between PAL and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines. The SC’s public information office (PIO) said the High Court found merit in the Jan. 11, 2019 petition filed by female cabin attendants of PAL.  The case was docketed as GR No. 243259 Halagueña, et al. v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. A copy of the decision was not available as of posting.  The PIO said it will post the copy at the SC’s website, sc.judiciary.gov.ph, once released. The PIO said that in granting the petition, the SC “emphasized the fundamental equality of women and men before the law which is enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution, the Labor Code, the Magna Carta of Women, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.” It said that “the Court held that considering the constitutional guarantee of protection to labor and security of tenure, respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. failed to provide a reasonable basis for differentiating compulsory retirement age based on sex.” It also said the SC “found insufficient proof to support the conclusion that female cabin attendants between 55 to 59 years old did not have the ‘necessary strength to open emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules’ unlike their male counterparts.” “The Court ruled that petitioners were denied employment opportunity at an age ‘not young enough to seek for a new job but not old enough to be considered retired.’ This deprived them of benefits attached to employment, such as income and medical benefits, five years earlier than their male counterpart, without any factual basis,” the PIO said quoting from the decision. “Aside from being repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and international convention, the Court found that the compulsory retirement provision in Section 144(A) of the Agreement was not voluntarily agreed upon by petitioners,” it said. It added that Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurred in the opinion, Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez and Japar B. Dimaampao took no part, while Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando was on wellness leave.