Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

19 - Salazar vs.

Achacoso

Facts:

Respondent Rosalie Tesoro, in a sworn statement filed with Phil. Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) charged petitioner Horty Salazar with illegal recruitment. Public Respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez
ordered the petitioner through a telegram directing him to appear before him in connection to the complaint filed
against him. On the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency,
Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a closure and seizure order.

By the implementation of the Closure and Seizure, the team confiscated items such as assorted costumes
which is now the subject of this petition. Petitioner request that personal properties seized be immediately returned
on the ground that said seizure is contrary to law and against the will of the owner, providing these reasons among
others; it violates “due process of law” guaranteed under Sec. 1, Art III of the Constitution, Sec. 2, Art III "to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose."

Issue:

WON POEA (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue warrants for search and seizure (or arrest) under Art. 38
of the Labor Code?

Rulings:

Under Sec. 2, Art III of the Constitution, "no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized. It is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest." Mayors may not exercise this
power. Neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer
issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process.

To that extent, the Court declares Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no
force and effect.

You might also like