ARLEEN INGRID A.

SANTOS
LABREL
August 7, 2019

Phil. Assoc. of Service Exporters vs. Drilon G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988

Facts: The petitioner, who is primarily engaged in the recruitment of Filipino workers for
overseas placement, challenges in the Petition for Certiorari 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 TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS,”
Specifically, the measure is assailed for “discrimination against males or females;” that it
“does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with
similar skills;” and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to be an
invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not
executive, in character. In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of
Article XIII, of the Constitution, providing for worker participation “in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.”
4 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, in addition to the “great and irreparable injury” that PASEI members face should
the Order be further enforced.

Issue: Whether or not the Department Order of the Respondent is unconstitutional and in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Discriminatory against Sexes

Law: Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the DOLE

Case History: Case was originally filed with the Supreme Court when DOLE issued
Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in
the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this
petition for certiorari and prohibition. Specifically, the measure is assailed for
"discrimination against males or females;"

Ruling: No, Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and
Employment is Constitutional. The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the
contested measure should be nullified. There is no question that Department Order No. 1
applies only to “female contract workers,” but it does not thereby make an undue
discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that “equality before the law” under
the Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and women. It
admits of classifications, provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to
existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the same class. The
Court is well aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad,
especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not a
few cases, physical and personal abuse.

Opinion: I agree with the decision of the court in stating that the law at hand is
constitutional. It is consistent with the provision of the Philippine Constitution on
equality. Article II Section 14 provides that the State recognizes the role of women in
nation building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of men and
women.
ARLEEN INGRID A. SANTOS
LABREL
August 7, 2019

Conference of Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. POEA G.R. No. 114714 April 21, 1995

Facts: Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., is an incorporated association of

licensed Filipino manning agencies, and its co-petitioners, all licensed manning agencies
which hire and recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of their respective foreign ship-
owner-principals, urge us to annul Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing
Board of the POEA and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05 which increases the
compensation and benefits of the POEA Standard Employment Contract to Seafarers
specifically death benefits will now equivalent to $50,000 and an additional $7,000 for
each child under 21 but not exceeding four children.

According to them, POEA does not have the power and authority to fix and promulgate
rates affecting death and workmen's compensation of Filipino seamen working in ocean-
going vessels; and only Congress can.

Issue: WON the POEA can promulgate rules by virtue of delegation of legislative power.

Law: Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, POEA Memorandum Circular No.
05, Resolution No. 01, series of 1994

Case History: POEA issued: Resolution No. 1, series of 1994 amending and increasing
the compensation and other benefits under Part 2, Section C, paragraph 1 and Section L,
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers
Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994 informing all Filipino seafarers, manning
agencies, ship owners, managers and principals hiring Filipinos of the said adjustment.

Held: Yes. Under Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, The State shall afford
full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

The constitutional challenge of the rule-making power of the POEA-based on

impermissible delegation of legislative power had been, as correctly contented by the
public respondents, brushed aside by this Court in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs.
POEA.

The governing Board of the Administration (POEA) shall promulgate the necessary rules
and regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration
(POEA).

To many of the problems attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may
not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious not to say, specific
solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates, who are
supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned to them.

While the making of laws is a non-delegable power that pertains exclusively to Congress,
nevertheless, the latter may constitutionally delegate the authority to promulgate rules
and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason
that the legislature finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate situations that
may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is required is that the regulation
should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in
contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.

That the challenged resolution and memorandum circular, which merely further amended
the previous Memorandum Circular No. 02, strictly conform to the sufficient and valid
standard of "fair and equitable employment practices" prescribed in E.O. No.797 can no
longer be disputed.

Opinion: I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the employees’ rights must
always be protected. To ensure this, it creates government bodies such as POEA. By
virtue of the powers delegated to it, it has the right to promulgate rules and regulations
that would ensure the rights of the people. The most important aspect of this law is the
providence of due process. Article 3 Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no
person must be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.