Technology has made the world smaller. Thanks to the pandemic lockdowns, it has become commonplace to hold virtual meetings instead of in-person ones and to have employees work remotely from wherever they are in the world. This is more convenient for employers and workers alike. Working remotely saves on office space, frees people from the dreaded commute, and allows employers to recruit from a wider talent pool.
For some employers, the ability to hire workers who live beyond the usual catchment area within a reasonable commuting distance is a godsend. However, the increased diversity might lead to other unforeseen issues arising from the different cultural and social backgrounds. One such issue is racial discrimination. Working completely remotely results in different interactions with colleagues than if one were to cultivate an in-person relationship. So, the question is, would an employee be protected from racism in the virtual workplace?
The existing Philippine law on racial discrimination is Presidential Decree 966, which took effect on 20 July 1976. PD 966 punishes “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred,
incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another color or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof,” as well as participation in organizations that promote or incite racial discrimination.
PD 966 was issued for the Philippines to comply with the 1967 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In the convention, racial discrimination is defined as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
PD 966 does not really address issues that might arise from racial tensions in an international workplace.
PD 966 also fails to address issues that might come up for remote workers. Will someone working in the Philippines have the legal standing to file a racial discrimination case against someone in another country? It really depends on the employment contract, the terms of employment, and so many other factors that the framers of the law had been unable to foresee. Which lawmaker in 1976 would have had the vision to imagine the post-pandemic world of remote jobs and zoom meetings?
Unlike the laws protecting us from age and gender -based discrimination in the workplace, PD 966 does not really afford uniform rules for adequate protection to the victims of racial discrimination in the workplace. Nor do existing laws call for mandatory sensitivity training or cultural explanations so that people of different cultural backgrounds will be better able to understand each other. The Philippines is a melting pot of cultures. Even among ourselves, we Filipinos should learn to be more sensitive to the practices, beliefs, and traditions of other people in our country.
The Philippines has also ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which obliges us to recognize human rights irrespective of race and that education shall strengthen respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The ICESCR also obliges all people to participate effectively in a free society, and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial, ethnic, and religious groups.
PD 966 should be updated to better protect workers who might have to deal with racial discrimination in the remote workplace, as well as protect companies that might also be facing problems with a more diverse workplace. Sensitivity training and exposure to a wide range of cultures would go a long way toward fostering a more inclusive and understanding workplace, but an updated law would be of more help as we navigate the 21st century.