There is something deeply disturbing about the spectacle now unfolding around the ₱85 NCR wage increase.

On one side are millions of workers being told that an additional ₱85 a day is somehow too much to bear. On the other hand, there are corporations doing billions of pesos’ worth of government infrastructure projects. And in between them stands a court order that, at least for the moment, has put the brakes on a wage increase that had already gone through the statutory wage-setting process.

The Partido Lakas ng Masa is therefore right to raise hell.

The Pasig Regional Trial Court issued a status quo ante order, followed by a temporary restraining order, after Readycon Trading and Construction Corp. and R-II Builders Inc. challenged Wage Order No. NCR-27. The order provides for an ₱85 increase in the NCR minimum wage, in two tranches. (Business World)

PLM’s objection is blunt: why should a court be the instrument for taking away a wage increase already determined through the legally established wage-setting machinery?

That question deserves a serious answer.

And the timing makes the controversy even harder to ignore.

Because one of the companies that went to court to stop the wage increase is Readycon.

And Readycon is not some struggling neighborhood enterprise barely keeping the lights on.

It is a major government contractor that has secured substantial public infrastructure projects—including the EDSA rehabilitation project, which is now under a very different kind of scrutiny.

Readycon was awarded the first phase of the EDSA rehabilitation project, worth about ₱1.18 billion. It later became part of the joint venture awarded the second phase, worth about ₱4 billion. (POLITIKO – News Philippine Politics)

Then came the potholes.

Freshly rehabilitated EDSA developed potholes after heavy monsoon rains. DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon inspected the damaged section and ordered repairs. Senator Panfilo Lacson has now filed Senate Resolution No. 594 seeking an investigation into the rehabilitation project, including its engineering standards and accountability. (Philstar.com)

The government says the contractor will shoulder the repair costs.

Fine.

But that is precisely why the public has every right to ask harder questions.

If a contractor can tell a court that an ₱85 daily wage increase is financially burdensome, while simultaneously undertaking multi-billion-peso public works projects, Filipinos are entitled to ask: where exactly is the burden?

And if the same contractor is involved in a road project that begins producing potholes only months after rehabilitation, the public is entitled to demand an even closer examination of the contractor’s financials, technical capacity, quality-control procedures, project costing and performance history.

This is not an accusation of guilt.

It is a demand for accountability.

The potholes on EDSA do not automatically prove that Readycon committed wrongdoing. DPWH has attributed the pavement damage to accumulated rainwater and drainage problems, while road experts have pointed out that pavement failure can involve several factors, including drainage, asphalt specifications, compaction, installation and the underlying road structure. (Daily Tribune)

But that is precisely why Lacson’s investigation is necessary.

Test it. Inspect it. Audit it. Find out what happened.

The Filipino taxpayer should not have to accept another convenient explanation and move on.

And the same principle should apply to the wage case.

If Readycon says it cannot absorb an ₱85 wage increase, then let the company open its books sufficiently to demonstrate the claim.

Show the operating losses.

Show the payroll.

Show the margins.

Show the cost structure.

Show the financial impact of the wage order.

But do not simply ask a worker earning the minimum wage to carry the burden of protecting corporate profitability.

Because ₱85 is not a fortune.

For a corporation, it may be an accounting item.

For a minimum-wage worker, it can mean rice, transportation, school expenses or another day’s worth of food.

That is why the PLM’s position deserves attention beyond partisan politics. The issue is not whether one likes or dislikes Readycon, R-II Builders, the court, DOLE or the PLM.

The issue is whose interests the machinery of government ultimately serves.

A wage board determines that workers deserve ₱85 more.

A contractor goes to court.

A judge stops implementation.

And suddenly, the worker is the one waiting.

That sequence should make every Filipino uncomfortable.

There is also a troubling irony here.

The country is currently engaged in a national reckoning over government infrastructure—particularly projects that were supposedly built to protect Filipinos from floods, traffic disasters and other public hazards.

Now we have EDSA, a road project presented as a showcase of modern rehabilitation technology, developing potholes after heavy rains.

The public is being told that drainage is the problem.

Perhaps.

But if drainage is the problem, why wasn’t it solved before the asphalt was laid?

If concrete barriers obstructed water flow, who designed that configuration?

If the pavement failed because of water accumulation, were the specifications adequate for Metro Manila’s rainy-season realities?

And if everything was built according to specification, why did a newly rehabilitated road deteriorate so quickly?

These are not unreasonable questions.

They are the questions taxpayers should be asking.

And they belong in the same national conversation about public accountability as the wage case.

Because ultimately, both controversies ask the same uncomfortable question:

Who gets protected when government decisions are made—the worker, the taxpayer, or the contractor?

The courts must of course be respected. Judges have the constitutional duty to interpret the law and protect due process. But respect for the judiciary does not mean immunity from public scrutiny. A judicial order affecting millions of workers deserves rigorous legal and public examination.

And if there are legitimate questions about jurisdiction, those questions should be resolved—not buried.

DOLE has said it intends to contest the TRO. Labor Secretary Francis Tolentino has also faced criticism from labor groups for accepting the court order rather than aggressively defending the wage increase. (Philstar.com)

Good.

Then let the legal battle proceed.

But let it proceed under one principle:

The minimum-wage worker cannot always be the easiest person in the room to sacrifice.

Readycon has every right to defend its interests in court.

The workers have an equal right to defend theirs.

And the Filipino people have a greater right to ask whether corporations receiving billions in public contracts should simultaneously be telling the country’s poorest workers that ₱85 is simply too expensive.

Meanwhile, EDSA’s potholes have provided an almost poetic backdrop to the entire controversy.

A road supposedly rehabilitated with billions of pesos is already breaking apart.

A wage increase supposedly granted through the proper process is being held back.

And ordinary Filipinos are once again being asked to wait.

Wait for the investigation.

Wait for the repairs.

Wait for the court.

Wait for the wage increase.

Perhaps this is the real pothole in our system—not the one on EDSA, but the enormous gap between the people who make the rules, the corporations that benefit from government spending, and the workers who are always told there is not enough money for them.

The Filipino worker deserves better than ₱85 being treated as a corporate crisis.

And the Filipino taxpayer deserves better than a billion-peso road that needs explaining almost as soon as it is finished.

Both deserve answers.

Not excuses.