Topic: Warrat of Arrest

HORTENCIA SALAZAR vs. HON. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in his capacity as Administrator of the POEA, and FERDIE
MARQUEZ
[G.R. No. 81510. March 14, 1990.]

Ponente: SARMIENTO, J.:

Nature:

This is a suit for prohibition against the Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 issued by the POEA.
Facts:

Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City filed a sworn statement with the POEA against her former manager Hortencia Salazar for
withholding the her PECC Card. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the
POEA regarding the complaint against him. On the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency,
public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to petitioner. It was stated in the said
order that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to beused as the means of committing illegal
recruitment, it having verified that petitioner has (1) Novalid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to
recruit and deployworkers for overseas employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor
Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code.
A team was then tasked toimplement the said Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen,went
to petitioner’s residence. They served the order to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in. The team confiscated assorted costumes.
Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties, because she was not given prior notice and hearing.
Petitioner alleged that the said Order violated her right to due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights, and the
properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation.
Petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. Although the acts sought to be barred are already fait accompli, thereby making
prohibition too late, the court considered the petition as one for certiorari in view of the grave public interest involved.

Issue:
Whether or not the POEA can validly issue warrants of search and seizure or arrest under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
Ruling:
NO. Article 38 of the Labor Code is unconstitutional and of no force and effect. Hence, POEA cannot validly issue warrants of
search and seizure or arrest under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
Under the new Constitution it is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. In one case, it was declared that
mayors may not exercise this power neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body.
The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article38 of the Labor Code which gives the Minister of Labor and Employment
or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of
authority . However, the Supreme Court declared Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect
and reiterated that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must
gothrough the judicial process.
The power of the President to order the arrestof aliens for deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It (the power to order arrests)
cannot be madeto extend to other cases, like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of thecourts.”
Furthermore, the search and seizure order in the present case was in the nature of a general warrant. The court held that the
warrant is null and void, because it must identify specifically the things to beseized.

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result
of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. 1205.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.