1.pasei.drilon

8/11/2019 1.PASEI.Drilon

1/8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner,vs.HON. FRANKLIN . !RILON "# Se$%e&"%' o( L")o% "n* E+-o'+en&, "n* TOAS!. ACHACOSO, "# A*+n#&%"&o% o( &/e P/-ne Oe%#e"# E+-o'+en&A*+n#&%"&on, respondents.

Gutierrez & Alo Law Offices for petitioner.

SARIENTO, J.:

The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm"engaged principally in the recritment of !ilipino or#ers, male and female, foroverseas placement," 1challenges the $onstittional validity of %epartment &rder 'o. ,Series of **, of the %epartment of +aor and Employment, in the character of"-I%E+I'ES -&/E0'I'- T1E TE2P&0A03 SSPE'SI&' &! %EP+&32E'T &!!I+IPI'& %&2ESTI$ A'% 1&SE1&+% 4&05E0S," in this petition for certiorari andprohiition. Specifically, the measre is assailed for "discrimination against males or

females6"

that it "does not apply to all !ilipino or#ers t only to domestic helpers andfemales ith similar s#ills6" 3and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held li#eiseto e an invalid exercise of the lama#ing poer, police poer eing legislative, and notexective, in character.

In its spplement to the petition, PASEI invo#es Section 7, of Article 8III, of the$onstittion, providing for or#er participation "in policy and decision9ma#ing processesaffecting their rights and enefits as may e provided y la." 2%epartment &rder 'o. ,it is contended, as passed in the asence of prior consltations. It is claimed, finally, toe in violation of the $harter:s non9impairment clase, in addition to the "great andirreparale in;ry" that PASEI memers face shold the &rder e frther enforced.

&n 2ay , ?ordan, @atar, $anada, 1ong#ong,nited States, Italy, 'oray, Astria, and Siterland. In smitting the validity of thechallenged "gidelines," the Solicitor -eneral invo#es the police poer of the PhilippineState.


2/8

It is admitted that %epartment &rder 'o. is in the natre of a police poer measre.The only >estion is hether or not it is valid nder the $onstittion.

The concept of police poer is ell9estalished in this ;risdiction. It has een definedas the "state athority to enact legislation that may interfere ith personal lierty or

property in order to promote the general elfare."5

As defined, it consists of () animposition of restraint pon lierty or property, (irements of the greater nmer.

'otithstanding its extensive seep, police poer is not ithot its on limitations. !orall its aesome conse>ences, it may not e exercised aritrarily or nreasonaly.

&therise, and in that event, it defeats the prpose for hich it is exercised, that is, toadvance the plic good. Ths, hen the poer is sed to frther private interests atthe expense of the citienry, there is a clear misse of the poer. 1

In the light of the foregoing, the petition mst e dismissed.

As a general rle, official acts en;oy a presmed vahdity. 13In the asence of clear andconvincing evidence to the contrary, the presmption logically stands.


3/8

The petitioner has shon no satisfactory reason hy the contested measre shold enllified. There is no >estion that %epartment &rder 'o. applies only to "femalecontract or#ers," 12t it does not therey ma#e an nde discrimination eteen thesexes. It is ell9settled that "e>ality efore the la" nder the $onstittion 15does notimport a perfect Identity of rights among all men and omen. It admits of classifications,

provided that () sch classifications rest on sstantial distinctions6 (ally to all memers of the same class. 14

The $ort is satisfied that the classification made9the preference for female or#ers Drests on sstantial distinctions.

As a matter of ;dicial notice, the $ort is ell aare of the nhappy plight that hasefallen or female laor force aroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitativeor#ing conditions mar#ed y, in not a fe cases, physical and personal ase. Thesordid tales of maltreatment sffered y migrant !ilipina or#ers, even rape and varios

forms of tortre, confirmed y testimonies of retrning or#ers, are compelling motivesfor rgent -overnment action. As precisely the careta#er of $onstittional rights, the$ort is called pon to protect victims of exploitation. In flfilling that dty, the $ortsstains the -overnment:s efforts.

The same, hoever, cannot e said of or male or#ers. In the first place, there is noevidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances, or men aroad have eenafflicted ith an Identical predicament. The petitioner has proffered no argment that the-overnment shold act similarly ith respect to male or#ers. The $ort, of corse, isnot impressing some male chavinistic notion that men are sperior to omen. 4hatthe $ort is saying is that it as largely a matter of evidence (that omen domestic

or#ers are eing ill9treated aroad in massive instances) and not pon some fanciflor aritrary yardstic# that the -overnment acted in this case. It is evidence capaleindeed of n>estionale demonstration and evidence this $ort accepts. The $ortcannot, hoever, say the same thing as far as men are concerned. There is simply noevidence to ;stify sch an inference. Sffice it to state, then, that insofar asclassifications are concerned, this $ort is content that distinctions are orne y theevidence. %iscrimination in this case is ;stified.

As e have frthermore indicated, exective determinations are generally final on the$ort. nder a replican regime, it is the exective ranch that enforces policy. !ortheir part, the corts decide, in the proper cases, hether that policy, or the manner yhich it is implemented, agrees ith the $onstittion or the las, t it is not for them to>estion its isdom. As a co9e>al ody, the ;diciary has great respect fordeterminations of the $hief Exective or his salterns, especially hen the legislatreitself has specifically given them enogh room on ho the la shold e effectivelyenforced. In the case at ar, there is no gainsaying the fact, and the $ort ill deal iththis at greater length shortly, that %epartment &rder 'o. implements the rle9ma#ingpoers granted y the +aor $ode. Bt hat shold e noted is the fact that in spite of


4/8

sch a fiction of finality, the $ort is on its on persaded that prevailing conditionsindeed call for a deployment an.

There is li#eise no dot that sch a classification is germane to the prpose ehindthe measre. n>estionaly, it is the avoed o;ective of %epartment &rder 'o. to

"enhance the protection for !ilipino female overseas or#ers"1

this $ort has no>arrel that in the midst of the terrile mistreatment !ilipina or#ers have sfferedaroad, a an on deployment ill e for their on good and elfare.

The &rder does not narroly apply to existing conditions. 0ather, it is intended to applyindefinitely so long as those conditions exist. This is clear from the &rder itself("Pending revie of the administrative and legal measres, in the Philippines and in thehost contries . . ."18), meaning to say that shold the athorities arrive at a meansimpressed ith a greater degree of permanency, the an shall e lifted. As a stop9gapmeasre, it is possessed of a necessary malleaility, depending on the circmstancesof each case. Accordingly, it provides

. +I!TI'- &! SSPE'SI&'. D The Secretary of +aor and Employment (%&+E) may,pon recommendation of the Philippine &verseas Employment Administration (P&EA), liftthe sspension in contries here there are

. Bilateral agreements or nderstanding ith the Philippines, andFor,

al protection clase of the $harter. It old e a classiccase of hat $hase refers to as a la that "ta#es property from A and gives it to B." 1Itold e an nlafl invasion of property rights and freedom of contract and needlessto state, an invalid act. (!ernando says "4here the classification is ased on schdistinctions that ma#e a real difference as infancy, sex, and stage of civiliation of

minority grops, the etter rle, it old seem, is to recognie its validity only if theyong, the omen, and the cltral minorities are singled ot for favorale treatment.There old e an element of nreasonaleness if on the contrary their stats that callsfor the la ministering to their needs is made the asis of discriminatory legislationagainst them. If sch e the case, it old e difficlt to refte the assertion of denial ofe>al protection." 3In the case at ar, the assailed &rder clearly accords protection tocertain omen or#ers, and not the contrary.)


5/8

It is incorrect to say that %epartment &rder 'o. prescries a total an on overseasdeployment. !rom scattered provisions of the &rder, it is evident that sch a total anhas hot een contemplated. 4e >ote

=. AT1&0IGE% %EP+&32E'T9The deployment of domestic helpers and or#ers ofsimilar s#ills defined herein to the folloing Hsic are athoried nder these gidelinesand are exempted from the sspension.

=. 1irings y immediate memers of the family of 1eads of State and-overnment6

=.< 1irings y 2inister, %epty 2inister and the other senior governmentofficials6 and

=.7 1irings y senior officials of the diplomatic corps and dly accreditedinternational organiations.

=.C 1irings y employers in contries ith hom the Philippines have

Hsic ilateral laor agreements or nderstanding.

xxx xxx xxx

J. /A$ATI&'I'- %&2ESTI$ 1E+PE0S A'% 4&05E0S &! SI2I+A0 S5I++S99/acationing domestic helpers andFor or#ers of similar s#ills shall e alloed to processith the P&EA and leave for or#site only if they are retrning to the same employer tofinish an existing or partially served employment contract. Those or#ers retrning toor#site to serve a ne employer shall e covered y the sspension and the provisionof these gidelines.

xxx xxx xxx

. +I!TI'- &! SSPE'SI&'9The Secretary of +aor and Employment (%&+E) may,pon recommendation of the Philippine &verseas Employment Administration (P&EA), liftthe sspension in contries here there are

. Bilateral agreements or nderstanding ith the Philippines, andFor,

ence the deployment an has on the right to travel does not impair the

right. The right to travel is s;ect, among other things, to the re>irements of "plicsafety," "as may e provided y la." 5%epartment &rder 'o. is a validimplementation of the +aor $ode, in particlar, its asic policy to "afford protection tolaor," 4prsant to the respondent %epartment of +aor:s rle9ma#ing athority vestedin it y the +aor $ode. The petitioner assmes that it is nreasonale simplyecase of its impact on the right to travel, t as e have stated, the right itself is notasolte. The dispted &rder is a valid >alification thereto.


6/8

'either is there merit in the contention that %epartment &rder 'o. constittes aninvalid exercise of legislative poer. It is tre that police poer is the domain of thelegislatre, t it does not mean that sch an athority may not e laflly delegated.

As e have mentioned, the +aor $ode itself vests the %epartment of +aor andEmployment ith rlema#ing poers in the enforcement hereof. 8

The petitioners:s reliance on the $onstittional garanty of or#er participation "in policyand decision9ma#ing processes affecting their rights and enefits" 9is not ell9ta#en.The right granted y this provision, again, mst smit to the demands and necessitiesof the State:s poer of reglation.

The $onstittion declares that

Sec. 7. The State shall afford fll protection to laor, local and overseas, organied andnorganied, and promote fll employment and e>ality of employment opportnities forall. 30

"Protection to laor" does not signify the promotion of employment alone. 4hatconcerns the $onstittion more paramontly is that sch an employment e aove all,decent, ;st, and hmane. It is ad enogh that the contry has to send its sons anddaghters to strange lands ecase it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home.nder these circmstances, the -overnment is dty9ond to insre that or toilingexpatriates have ade>ate protection, personally and economically, hile aay fromhome. In this case, the -overnment has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannotseriosly dispte, of the lac# or inade>acy of sch protection, and as part of its dty, ithas precisely ordered an indefinite an on deployment.

The $ort finds frthermore that the -overnment has not indiscriminately made se of

its athority. It is not contested that it has in fact removed the prohiition ith respect tocertain contries as manifested y the Solicitor -eneral.

The non9impairment clase of the $onstittion, invo#ed y the petitioner, mst yield tothe loftier prposes targetted y the -overnment. 31!reedom of contract and enterprise,li#e all other freedoms, is not free from restrictions, more so in this ;risdiction, herelaissez fairehas never een flly accepted as a controlling economic ay of life.

This $ort nderstands the grave implications the >estioned &rder has on thesiness of recritment. The concern of the -overnment, hoever, is not necessarily tomaintain profits of siness firms. In the ordinary se>ence of events, it is profits that

sffer as a reslt of -overnment reglation. The interest of the State is to provide adecent living to its citiens. The -overnment has convinced the $ort in this case thatthis is its intent. 4e do not find the impgned &rder to e tainted ith a grave ase ofdiscretion to arrant the extraordinary relief prayed for.

41E0E!&0E, the petition is %IS2ISSE%. 'o costs.

S& &0%E0E%.


7/8

Yap, C.J., Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-errera, Cruz, !aras, Feliciano, Ganca"co,!a#illa, $i#in, Cortes an# Gri%o-Auino, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr. an# Me#ial#ea, JJ., are on leave.

Foo&no&e#

0ollo, 7.

< '#.,


8/8

1.pasei.drilon

Documents