Senators on Monday, August 3 criticized the issuance of a temporary restraining order issued by a Pasig City Regional Trial Court against the implementation of the P85 daily minimum wage increase in Metro Manila. 

The petition filed by Readycon Trading and Construction Corp. and R-11 Builders, Inc. before Pasig RTC Branch 152 sought to stop the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board—NCR and the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) from implementing the expected wage increase until August 13.

Sen. Raffy Tulfo pointed out that the court’s action is unacceptable since Article 126 of the Labor Code clearly states that no court, tribunal or other authority may issue a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, or TRO against any hearing, action or proceeding of the Regional Wage Boards. 

Tulfo argued that an appeal should have gone through the proper process and been filed with the appropriate agency, which in this case, should have been the NWPC. 

“The wage increase is already meager dspite the continuous rise in the prices of goods, and now even that has been denied to our struggling workers who simply want to make ends meet,” Tulfo said in a statement. 

It may be recalled that the additional P85 in the daily minimum wage was divided into two phases—the P60, which took effect on July 25, while the remaining P25 increase will be implemented starting January 1, 2027.Tulfo lamented that the court’s action was a major blow to the livelihoods of Filipino workers. 

“Suspending their wage increase is an even greater violation of theri rights, especially amid the continuing rise in the prices of basic goods. The lives and livelihoods of laborerrs should take precedence in this matter,” he said.

“The court should no longer interfere in this issue, and it would be better for these companies—who show no appreciation for the contributions of their workers to their businesses—to pursue their appeal through the proper process,” the senator said.

Tulfo said he will soon file a bill to amend the provisions of Article 126 of the Labor Code so that there would no longer be confusion in the implementation of the law regarding wage hikes. 

Sen. Risa Hontiveros also lamented the decision of the court, pointing out that there are already solutions on the table that can be implemented by the government at this point in time.

“First, the P85 wage hike must be implemented. It’s already a modest increase, and it’s even being paid in installments. Groups such as the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines have already agreed to it, and some employers are prepared to provide the wage increase. So workers should not lose this pay raise simply because it has been blocked in court,” Hontiveros said.

She said the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) should fight the case so it can be dismissed as possible, or so the suspension of the wage hike can be lifted. 

“I also urge our business community: let us go through the administrative processes for exemption. Let us respect the law and the tripartite system in which workers, employers, and the government all have a voice,” she appealed.

“If this system is bypassed, the predictability and industrial peace that allow businesses to thrive will be put at risk,” she stressed.

Hontiveros also said that alongside higher wages, the government should pursue the lowering of electricity costs. 

She pointed out the government cannot give workers a wage increase with one hand only to take it back through higher electricity bills with the other.

“When it comes to the wage hike and reducing electricity charges, we have solutions, we have the means, and we can fix this,” she said.

Sen. Joel Villanueva, chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Employment said that while he respects the court’s decision he is confused by the ruling.

Villanueva also cited the inacceptability of the TRO, citing Article 126 of the Labor Code. 

“As head of the Senate labor panel, I’m also saddened by this development. This increase is badly needed by our workers. I’m also confused by that decision primarily because of Article 126 of the Labor Code,” he said.

“I’m more than willing to be corrected, but that is also my understanding of the law," added Villanueva.

Nevertheless, Villanueva said he hope and pray that the matter be soon resolved and any legal questions regarding the wage increase would be clarified.