PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXTThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. vs. FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC.,
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D.ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,
Gutierrez & Alo Law Offices for petitioner.
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm "engagedprincipally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement,"
challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARYSUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," inthis petition for certiorari and prohibition. Specifically, the measure is assailed for "discriminationagainst males or females;"
that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpersand females with similar skills;"
and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to be aninvalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not executive, incharacter.In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of Article XIII, of the Constitution, providingfor worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits asmay be provided by law."
Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was passed in the absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finally, to be in violation of the Charter's non-impairment clause, inaddition to the "great and irreparable injury" that PASEI members face should the Order be further enforced.On May 25, 1988, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents Secretary of Labor andAdministrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, filed a Comment informing theCourt that on March 8, 1988, the respondent Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the statesof Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada, Hongkong, United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and Switzerland.
Insubmitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines," the Solicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine State.It is admitted that Department Order No. 1 is in the nature of a police power measure. The onlyquestion is whether or not it is valid under the Constitution.