Salazar v Achacoso

FACTS:

• On October 21, 1987, Tesoro filed with Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) a complaint against petitioner. Complainant alleges that petitioner had been
operating a recruitment agency sans license (illegal recruitment).
• Public respondent (Administrator Achacoso), after having verified petitioner’s lack of
license, thereafter issued the herein challenged Closure and Seizure Order.
• In this Order had the notice that petitioner’s “documents and paraphernalia being used
xxx as means of committing illegal recruitment” shall forthwith be seized.
• Petitioner’s premises were raided by public respondent’s team. The former subsequently
wrote the latter, alleging that they had no power to order a search and seizure and
requested for the return of those seized.
• In this petition for certiorari before the Court, petitioner propounded his earlier argument
that the public respondent did not have the authority to issue a search and warrant,
pursuant to Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 Consti.
• Public respondent argues that the power is provided under Sec. 38, par. (c) of the Labor
Code, to wit:
o “The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representative shall have the power
to recommend the arrest and detention, xxx and seizure of documents,
paraphernalia, properties, and other implements used in illegal recruitment…”

ISSUE:

• Whether or not the Labor Secretary (or his representative) may validly issue warrants of
arrest or of search and seizure pursuant to the Labor Code.

RULING:

• No. Not being a judge, respondent could not have validly issued a warrant of either kind.
• Above-cited provision(s) of the Labor Code are thus declared unconstitutional, for they
contravene the mandate of the constitution that no person shall be subject to
unreasonable searches and seizures and without due process of law.