What good is a job that cannot sustain a family, provide benefits, or offer security of tenure?
I refuse to believe that contractualization ended when all that changed was its name.
Recently, legislators have once again refiled an anti-ENDO bill to address pervasive contractualization in the Philippines. This is a stark reminder that promises to undo and end the practice have yet to translate into real protection for workers.
In the 20th Congress, Senator Joel Villanueva reintroduced the Security of Tenure and End of End-of-Contract (ENDO) Act, emphasizing that repeated short-term employment remains deeply oppressive and undermines constitutional labor rights. The continued need for such legislation shows that the problem is not extinct—it endures and keeps on persisting. ENDO must end, not just be rebranded or tolerated.
The persistence of ENDO reveals that rebranding contractual labor has become a loophole employers exploit to deny workers stability and benefits. Contractual or “non-regular” work arrangements remain widespread nearly a decade after official pronouncements against the practice.
ENDOring the effects
While labor-only contract is technically prohibited, employers have mastered the art of skirting the law, and the laborers are the one who endures the effect.
I see workers dismissed just months before regularization, only to be rehired under a different agency or contract that resets their employment status. Policies like DOLE Department Order No. 174 were meant to end this practice, yet they only pushed contractualization into more sophisticated forms.
What troubles me more is how this system conditions workers to lower their expectations. We are told to be grateful for “opportunities” even when those opportunities offer no stability and no benefits. Tell me how can we be grateful when we cannot even offer concrete answers, even for ourselves, if we can still earn and eat for tomorrow. If we still have work and can still provide for our family. Employment, which should grant dignity and security, is reduced to a temporary favor that can be withdrawn at any time.
It takes two to endo
Weak enforcement and limited accountability allow companies and public institutions alike to normalize insecure work. Despite government directives to prohibit illegal contracting, implementation has been uneven. Regularization campaigns have had some success. DOLE data show over 650,000 workers regularized between 2016 and 2022—but this pales in comparison to the millions still stuck in precarious jobs.
Moreover, the government itself is not just a mere observer, it has become part of the problem. In the public sector, prolonged “job order” and contract service arrangements have ballooned to hundreds of thousands, effectively mirroring private-sector ENDO under a different name and prolonging exploitation even among those expected to enforce labor standards.
Some defenders of the status quo argue that flexible contracts support business adaptability and job creation, and that overly strict rules could reduce opportunities when unemployment is high. Indeed, service contracting groups claim ending all forms of contractualization could lead to job losses.
However, this argument collapses under scrutiny. What good is a job that cannot sustain a family, provide benefits, or offer security of tenure? Temporary flexibility should not equate to perpetual uncertainty.
Endo suffering
I believe ENDO persists because it allows employers to transfer the risks of doing business directly onto workers. Under contractual arrangements, companies enjoy flexibility and reduced costs, while workers absorb instability, insecurity, and the constant threat of unemployment. Short-term contracts place the burden of uncertainty on those who can least afford it, forcing workers to accept unfavorable conditions simply to keep earning. What should be shared economic risk becomes a one-sided sacrifice.
What troubles me most is how exploitation is reframed as practicality. Employers justify contractualization as a necessity, yet it is workers who suffer when illness strikes, benefits are denied, or contracts end without warning. In this system, earning loses its promise of stability and becomes a daily struggle for survival.
Endo the system
To finally eradicate ENDO, the government must commit not only to reform but to restoration—to undo a system that taught workers they are replaceable, temporary, and undeserving of permanence.
Specific solutions are within reach, but they require political courage and accountability. First, Congress should urgently pass and strengthen the Security of Tenure and End of Endo Act with clear definitions that close legal loopholes, explicitly ban labor-only contracting, and ensure regularization for work that is integral to business operations.
DOLE must also strengthen enforcement capacity with more labor inspectors, stronger penalties for violators, and protection against employer retaliation for filing complaints. Third, government agencies should lead by example by phasing out precarious work arrangements in the public sector and regularizing job orders and contract service workers.
Workers who cannot plan for the future due to uncertainties given by ENDO cannot meaningfully contribute to national development. Our laborers deserve an environment where they wouldn’t feel like they are running out of time or would lose their jobs just because they are sick.
Let’s cut this system because if this still lingers around and just guises through different forms, I am afraid that we cannot undo anymore the damage that it can impart to our workers.
