Cruz, Jenell

Power of Control

Repeal of LOI by EO

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) v. Torres

August 19, 1993

Bellosillo, J.

Petition: Petition for Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction/Restraining Order praying that EO 450
be declared invalid for being contrary to LOI 1190

Facts:
June 1982 President Marcos, when still clothed with legislative power, issued Letter of Instruction
(LOI) 1190 withholding the grant of new license to operate agencies for overseas employment except as
he may otherwise direct.

May 1991 President Aquino issued EO 450 revoking LOI 1190, lifting the ban on new applications for
licenses to operate recruitment agencies subject to guidelines and regulations the Secretary of Labor
may promulgate.

April 1991 respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment promulgated Department No. 9 entitled
“Guidelines Implementing EO 450”.

Since the EO issued by President Aquino was merely an administrative rule and not a law, parties
debate whether the the LOI issued by President Marcos was a law or simply an administrative rule as
well in view of his dual position as chief executive and legislative authority.

Petitioners argue that the LOI is a law and hence, the EO cannot countermand it, while respondents
claim that the LOI is only an administrative issuance which may be superseded by an EO.

Issue/s:
WON the LOI 1190 issued by President Marcos is an administrative rule which would allow EO 450 to
repeal it- YES

Ruling:
LOI simply imposes a presidential review of the authority of the Minister of Labor and Employment to
grant licenses, hence, directed to him alone. LOI is undoubtedly an administrative action and should
properly be treated as an administrative issuance.

Unlike Presidential Decrees, which by usage have gained acceptance as laws promulgated by the
President, LOIs are mere administrative issuances except when the conditions set out in Garcia-Padilla
v. Enrile exist wherein to be considered as part of law of the land, it must be established that
the LOI was issued to a response to a “grace emergency or threat or imminence thereof,
or whatever the interim Batasan Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is
unable to act adequately on any matter”. Such absence of any of these conditions fortifies that the
opinion that the LOI cannot be any more than a mere administrative issuance. There is no
indication in LOI 1190 that the judgment of the President it is grave.

LOI 1190 did not suspend the enforcement of Art. 25 of the Labor Code but merely added another level
of administrative review.

Petitioners contend that the EO 450 cannot repeal LOI 1190 for Congress has not delegated that power
to the President. However, the Court ruled that there is no need for legislative delegation of
Cruz, Jenell

power to the President to revoke the LOI by way of an EO in the view that the finding that
LOI 1190 is a mere administrative directive, hence, may be repealed, altered, or modified
by EO 450, and DO 9 must consequently be upheld.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. Executive Order No. 450 and Department Order
No. 9 of the Department of Labor and Employment are SUSTAINED. Accordingly, Letter of Instruction
No. 1190 is declared REPEALED and SUPERSEDED by Executive Order No. 450.

Other significant things:

Labor Code, Art. 25. "Private Sector Participation in the Recruitment and Placement of Workers. —
Pursuant to national development objectives and in order to harness and maximize the use of private
sector resources and initiative in the development and implementation of a comprehensive employment
program, the private employment sector shall participate in the recruitment and placement of workers,
locally and overseas, under such guidelines, rules and regulations, as may be issued by the Secretary of
Labor.