CHAPTER 2: THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify important provisions in the Philippine Constitution related to

tourism and travel.
2. Enumerate the rights of travelers as well as the entities engaged
tourism, travel and hospitality industry

THE LAW

The Constitution is defined as the original and fundamental principles of

law by which a system of government is created and according to which a
country is governed. It is the fundamental law of the land, to which all other
laws must conform. It is a written instrument by which the fundamental
powers of the government are established, limited, and defined, and by which
those powers are distributed among several departments for their safe and
useful exercise for the benefits of the body politic.

Article III (Bill of Rights) and Article XII (National Economy and
Patrimony) are some of the Constitutional provisions related to tourism which
may be given preferential attention.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal
protection of the laws.

Section 1 of Bill of Rights; explained.

Under the Constitution, the term “life”, of which a person may not be
deprived without due process, means more than animal existence. With the
emphasis on a social and economic rights at present, life includes, at the very
least, the right to a decent living.

According to Justice Malcom, liberty means “ that measure of freedom

which may be enjoyed in a civilized community consistently with the peaceful
enjoyment of life freedom in others”. Liberty includes the right to be free to
use his faculties in all the lawful ways; to live and work where he wills; to earn
his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any vocation; and for that
purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and
essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion.
Liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong; it is guided by reason and
upright and honorable conscience of the individual.
 “Property” is defined as “anything which is or may be the object of
appropriation.” Anything which has money value and which is supposed to be
within the commerce of man is embraced in the term property. The right to
earn one’s daily wage and right to engage in business are likewise property.

Equal Protection of the Law means: Persons similarly situated

should be similarly treated. There should be no favoritism. The benefits of
memberships in a state as well as the burdens should not be distributed in
equal measure. Uniformity of treatment should be the rule.

“Due process of law” is a law which hears before it condemns, which

proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment after trial. Due process of law
does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding in the regular courts. The
guarantee of due process, viewed in its procedural aspect, requires no
particular form or procedure. It implies due notice to the individual, of the
proceedings, an opportunity to defend himself and the problem of the propriety
of deprivations, under the circumstances presented, must be resolved in a
manner consistent with essential fairness. It means essentially a fair and
impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of the defense.

The essential requirement of procedural due process in courts are as

follows:

1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear

ad determine matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant or over the property which is the subject of the
proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard; and
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

Application of the Law

Case: Congressman Peter Genuino, a Filipino Citizen, has been accused of

tax evasion and being investigated for dealing prohibited drugs in the United
States of America. He is currently residing in the Philippines so that he can
pursue his alleged illegal businesses and his seat in congress as a convenient
cover. In this regard, the United States government requested for the
extradition of Cong. Genuino from the Philippine Government so that he will
be investigated under the U.S. jurisdiction. Pending the evaluation of his
extradition, Cong. Genuino demanded for his extradition papers from the U.S.
government through the Philippine government so that he can already file his
Opposition in the Philippine courts without need of being extradited to the
United States of America. The Philippine government, with the concurrence of
the American government, refused to provide Cong. Genuino with extradition
papers. In this situation, is Cong. Genuino already deprived of his right to
“due process”?

Legal Opinion: NO. Cong. Genuino is not deprived of his right to “due
process”. P.D. No. 1069 (Prescribing the Procedure for Extradition of Persons
who have committed crimes in a Foreign Country” signed into law on January
13, 1977) which implements RP-US Extradition Treaty provides the time when
the extradite shall be furnished a copy of petition for extradition as well as the
supporting papers, i.e., after the filing of the extradition in court. The law does
not grant and extradite a right to notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage in extradition process. A different interpretation will be dangerous as
this will be an opportunity for extradite to flee while the investigation during the
evaluation of the extradition process is pending.

The Law

In many instances, communication and correspondences are inevitable

in the tourism, travel and hospitality industry. Because of its daily use, it is
important to understand what laws may be applied.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence

shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

xxx

(2) any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding

section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Explanation

The form of correspondence and communication that are covered in this

provision include letters, telegrams, telephone calls, messages and the likes.

Republic Act NO. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law

provides penalties for specific violations of the privacy of communication.
Under Section 3 of the Act, the Court will authorize wire taps in certain crimes,
such as treason, espionage, provoking of war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting
to sedition, kidnapping and other offenses against national security.

Any evidence obtained in violation of the above shall be considered

“fruit of the poisonous tree” and shall not be admitted as evidence in any
evidence or criminal proceeding.
Application of the Law

Case: The National Bureau of Investigation received a tip on a very important

case the bureau has been working on. It deals with massive drug dealing
using hotel suites as meeting places of high-profile drug dealers. The bureau
sought the cooperation of the hotel management for an entrapment operation.
Wire-tapping devices were installed. The adjacent suite was reserved by NBI
agents on a stakeout. Was the operation legal and justified?

Legal Opinion: The operation is considered illegal in violation of Republic

Act No. 4200, and any evidence obtained by virtue of such wiretapping
devices shall not be admissible as evidence in any administrative or criminal
proceedings. The massive drug dealing in violation of the Dangerous Drug
Acts is not one of the offenses which authorized wire taps under the law. It is
a rule of statutory construction that laws must be strictly construed, and what
the law excludes must not include.

The Law

For a labor-intensive industry like the tourism, travel and hospitality

industry, it is common to have disputes between the labor sector and the
management. Likewise, depiction of women and children in an exploitative
manner has happened in the past. Freedom of speech has to be understood
in the right context.

Section 4. No law shall be passed, abridging the freedom of

speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people to
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of
grievances.

Explanation

Speech expression and press include every form of expression,

whether oral, tape, CD or DVD recorded.

Obscenity is defined as it includes materials which, taken as a whole,

appeals to the prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value. Matter so classified is not protected under the “free speech”
guarantee of the Constitution. Guidelines for determining obscenity have
changed through the years, but a material will be considered “obscene” when
the following requisites concur:

a. The subject as a whole appeals to the prurient interest of the average

person, using contemporary community standards.
b. The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual
conduct as prohibited by law;
 c. The work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value.

It is worth considering the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on

obscenity as in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Marina Padan Y
Alova, et.al., G.R. No. L-7295: Thus:

“We have had the occasion to consider offenses like exhibition of still or
moving pictures of women and in the nude, which we have condemned for
obscenity and as offensive to morals. In those cases, one might yet claim
that there was involved the element of art; that connoisseurs of the same,
and painters and sculptors might find inspiration in the showing of pictures
in nude, or the human body exhibited in the sheer nakedness, as models
in tableaux vivants. But an actual exhibition of the sexual act, preceded by
acts of lasciviousness, can have no redeeming feature. In it, there is no
room for art. One can see nothing in it but clear and unmitigated
obscenity, indecency, and an offense to public morals, inspiring and
causing as it does, nothing but lust and lewdness, and exerting a
corrupting influence specially on the youth of the land”

Application of Law

Case: Fort Santiago is a well-maintained wholesome historic theme park

in Manila. The regular park promenaders were suddenly awed by the
parading young girls clad in skimpy bikinis. These were movie starlets who
were doing a pictorial for magazine. There were occasions when the director
would tell the girls to take off their bikini bras only to cover their breast with
their arms. The crow was uneasy and grew bigger as the pictorial lasted
almost over an hour. A Manila councilor who was near the location reminded
the director of the city ordinance and the law they were violating. Did the
Manila councilor have the right to put a stop to the pictorial? Did the
organizers and participants of the pictorial really violate any law?

Legal Opinion: The Manila councilor had the right to put a stop to the
pictorial by virtue of a city ordinance prohibiting any lewd acts which are
offensive to morals and public policy. Such act may be considered a right of
the State, in the legitimate exercise of police power, to suppress smut
provided it is smut. It is a known principle that the state has the authority to
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
promote general welfare. (See Leo Pita vs. the Court of Appeals, G.R. NO.
80806, October 5, 1989)
The Law

Every person has the right to travel and reside anywhere he chooses.

Section 6. The liberty of abode and changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order
of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.

Explanation

This constitutional provision guarantees:

1. Freedom to choose and change one’s place of residence and dwelling

place;
2. Freedom to travel within or outside the country.

However, these constitutional liberties are not absolute rights for they can
be regulated by a lawful order of the court. An order releasing a person
accused of a crime on bail is similar to a “lawful order of the court” as
contemplated under the above provision, and a hold-departure order may be
issued as this is a necessary consequence of the function of the bail bond
which is to secure the person’s appearance when needed.

Application of the Law

Case: Mr. Bondoc, president of the ABC Securities, Inc., has been
charged of estafa under Philippine courts. While ABC Securities, Inc. is under
receivership as approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr.
Bondoc requested the court if he can be allowed to leave for the United States
which is “ relative to his business transactions and opportunities” since he is
already released on bail and his bailbond has been approved by the Court.
May the Court deny Mr. Bondoc’s request without violating his constitutional
right to travel?

Legal Opinion: Yes, the Court may deny Mr. Bondoc’s right to travel. A
court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the
country. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail
bond. Its object is to relieve Mr. Bondoc of imprisonment and the state of the
burden of keeping him, pending trial, and at the same time, to put him as
much as under the power of the court as if he were in custody of proper
officer, and to secure his appearance so as to answer the call of the court and
do what the law may require of him. The condition imposed upon Mr. Bondoc
to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his
presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. (See Manotoc
vs the Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. L-62100, May 30, 1986).

The Law

Once again, the labor-intensive nature of the tourism, travel and

hospitality industry elicits the possibility of unions and associations being
formed to protect rights of employees. While there is a provision in the
constitution on this matter, a lengthier discussion is covered by the chapter on
Labor Law.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in

the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Explanation

Government employees are now given the right to form unions.

However, their right to strike is not included in the right to form unions. Unlike
those employed in the private sector, Government employees do not have the
constitutional right to strike as a mandate under the civil service rules and
regulations prohibiting government employees to strike. (See Social Security
System Employees Association (SSSEA) et.al. vs. the Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 85279, July 28, 1989)

Application of the Law

Case: Junie Bustillos, a room attendant, has been employed at a

Quezon City hotel for five years. In his late twenties, Junie is a hardworking
and very idealistic employee. He has seen many abuses by the management
especially in the past three years in the hotel. Approximately 70 % of the
employees feel low morale because of these abuses and would readily
support any move to form a union. Junie took the initiative in talking to some
potential leaders who will form the core group of possible union. He believes
that this is the only way they can protect the rights of the hotel workers. Upon
learning of Junie’s plans, top management gradually worked on a plan on how
to get rid of Junie. After three months, Junie was convicted of serious charges
resulting in his dismissal from the hotel. Did the hotel management do the
right thing? Did the hotel management violate any law?

Legal Opinion: Yes the hotel management violated the Labor Code of the
Philippines and the 1987 Constitution. By terminating Junie because of his
initiative to form a possible union constitutes an unfair labor practice in
violation of Section 8, Article III of the Philippine Constitution. This may be
construed as union-busting.
 In the case of Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Franco, et.al., G.R. NO.
148195, May 16, 2005, four (4) employees of Lopez Sugar Corporation
formed a union and became officers as such. Thereafter, these four (4)
employees received notices informing that they are included in the “special
retirement program” for the supervisors and middle level managers; hence,
their employment with the Corporation was to be terminated. The Supreme
Court ruled in favor of the four (4) employees and further declared that it will
not hesitate to strike down a redundancy program structured by the
corporation to downsize its personnel, solely for the purpose of weakening the
union leadership, thereby preventing it from securing reasonable terms and
conditions of employment in their CBA with the employer.

The Law

The tourism, travel and hospitality industry makes use of lots of

contracts an, example, employment, engagement, agencies, sales, franchise,
property management, purchase, services and the like. Thus, it is important
to study obligations and contracts.

Section 10. No law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be

passed.

Explanation

Under the Civil Code the contract constitutes the law of the parties
unless it violates some provision of law or public policy. The parties
themselves make the law by which they shall governed, and it is the business
of the courts to see that parties to a legal contract comply with its terms. A
law changing the terms of the legal contract between the parties, either in
time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with
those expressed or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that
provided in its terms, is a law which impairs the obligation of a contract , and is
null and void. An interference with the terms of a legal contract by legislation
is unwarranted and illegal.

However, not all impairment of the contractual provisions violates the

Constitution. The Supreme Court has pronounced that a valid exercise of
police power of the sates is superior to obligations of contracts.

Police Power is a prerogative enjoyed by the state and a limitation on

liberty and property by the bill of rights. It has been identified with the state
authority to enact legislation that may interfere in order to promote the general
welfare. It is the power to regulate the exercise of constitutional rights to
promote health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general
welfare of the people.
Application of the Law

Case: The Philippine Airlines (PAL) and the Chamber of Real Estate
Builders, Association (CREBA) filed a Petition to the Supreme Court
questioning the validity of Republic Act No. 7716 (An Act Restructuring the
Value Added Tax System Widening Its Base and Enhancing its
Administration) because it impairs obligations of contracts on existing sales on
real property payable in installments, franchise privileges and exempt
transactions such as the sale of agricultural products, food items, petroleum,
medical and veterinary services. Is the contention of PAL and CREBA
correct?

Legal Opinion: The contention of PAL and CREBA is incorrect. Republic

Act No. 7716 has been declared to be valid and has been held that contracts
must be understood as having been made in reference to the possible
exercise of police power of the state, a rightful authority of the government
and no obligation of contract can extend to the defeat of the authority. (See
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, October 30, 1995)

NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

The Law

It is important to be informed of some of the constitutional provisions on

National Economy and Patrimony because some are applicable to tourism.

Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the

economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates,
reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or
such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of
investments. xxx

In the grant of the rights, privileges and concessions covering

national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos.

The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign

investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its
national goals and priorities.

Explanation
 The provision allowing the nationalization of certain businesses
covering national economy and patrimony has not been considered a new
doctrine. In the case of Inchong vs. Hernandez, No. L-7995, 101 Phil. 1155
(May 31, 1957), Filipinization of business may be done without violating the
equal protection clause.

The patrimony of the National that should be conserved and developed

refers only our rich natural resources but also the cultural heritage of our race.
It also refers to our intelligence in arts, science and letters. Therefore, we
should develop not only our lands, forests, mines and other natural resources
but also the mental ability or faculty of our people.

In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to

heritage. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not
only to the natural resources of the Philippines, but also to the natural
resources of the Philippines, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos

The term “qualified Filipinos” simply means that preference shall be

given to those citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common
good, because of credible competence and efficiency. It certainly does not
mandate the pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or
organizations that are incompetent or inefficient, since such an indiscriminate
preference would be counter-productive and inimical to common good. In the
granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a choice has
to be made between a “qualified foreigner” and a “qualified Filipino,” the latter
shall be chosen over the former.

Application of the Law

Case: During a bid for the purchase of the majority shares in Manila
Hotel, Malaysian corporation was the highest bidder. However, instead of
awarding the sale to the Malaysian corporation, the same was awarded to a
Filipino Corporation. Is the awarding of the sale in favor of the Filipino
corporation valid?

Legal Opinion

Yes. Article XII Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states the
granting of privileges involving national patrimony shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos.

As held in the case of Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service

Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997:

“The Manila Hotel has become a landmark – a living testimonial of

Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively and American hotel when it first
opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino. Formerly a
concourse for the elite, it has since become the venue of various significant
events which have shaped Philippine history. It was called the Cultural Center
of the 1930s. It was the site of the festivities during the inauguration of the
Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the Official Guest House of the
Philippine Government it plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are
accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality.”

“The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book The Manila
Hotel; The Heart and Memory of a City. During the World War II the hotel was
converted by the Japanese Military Administration into military headquarters.
When the American forces returned to recapture Manila the hotel was
selected by the Japanese together with Intramuros as the two (2) places for
their final stand. Thereafter, in the 1950s and 1960s, the hotel became the
center of political activities, playing host to almost every political convention.
In 1970 the hotel reopened after a renovation and reaped numerous
international recognitions, an acknowledgement of the Filipino talent and
ingenuity. In 1986 the hotel was the site of the failed coup d’etat where an
aspirant for vice-president was ‘proclaimed’ President of the Philippine
Republic”

“For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to
the triumphs and failures, love and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is
impressed with public interest; its own historicity associated with our struggle
for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Verily, Manila Hotel has
become part of our national economy and patrimony.

The Law

Many multinational corporations want to invest in the Philippine tourism,

travel and hospitality industry. It is important to study to what extent and how
they can invest.

Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of

authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except
to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations
organized under the laws of the Philippines or at least 60 per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise,
certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer
period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be
granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common
good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in
public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign
investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be
limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive
and managing officers of such corporation or association must be
citizens of the Philippines.

Explanation

The highlights of the above provision are as follows:

The first sentence provides that public utility franchises will be granted
only to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations at least sixty per centum of
the capital of which is owned by the citizens.

The second sentence allows the legislature to impair the obligation of

franchises “ when the common good” so requires.

The last sentence authorizes the participation of foreign investors to

participate as board of directors of these public utility enterprises but shall be
limited to their proportionate share in the capital as mandated in the first
sentence. However, the executive and managing officers of such public utility
enterprise must be citizens of the Philippines.

The term “public utility” is defined under Commonwealth Act No. 146
Section 13 (b) which states:

“(b) The term “public service” includes every person that now or
hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or
compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent,
occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any
common carrier, xxx, sub-way motor vehicle, either of freight or passenger, or
both with class, express service, steamboat or steamship line, pontines,
ferries, and water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight
or both, shipyard, marine railways, marine repair shop, warehouse wharf or
dock xxx and other similar public services: xxx”

Application of the Law

On November 24, 1994, private respondent Grand Air applied for

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB), which application was docketed as CAB Case NO. EP-12711.
Accordingly, the Civil Aeronautics Board granted a temporary operating permit
in favor of Grand Air allowing the same to engage in schedule domestic air
transportation services, particularly the Manila-Cebu, Manila- Davao, and
converse routes. In this regard, Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) is now
questioning the authority of the Civil Aeronautics Board in issuing a temporary
permit on the ground that Grand Air does not possess a legislative franchise
authorizing it to engage in air transportation service within the Philippines or
elsewhere. Such franchise is, allegedly, a requisite for the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity by the respondent Board, as
mandated under Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution.

Does CAB have the authority to issue a Certificate of Public

Convenience and Necessity in favor or Grand Air even if no franchise has
been issued yet to the latter in accordance with Section 11, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution?

Legal Opinion

Yes, CAB has the authority to issue Certificate of Public Convenience.

The Civil Aeronautics Board has jurisdiction over Grand Air’s Application for a
Temporary Operating Permit. The Board is expressly authorized by Republic
Act 776 to issue a temporary operating permit or Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity, and nothing contained in said law negates the
power to issue said permit before the completion of the applicant’s evidence.
Indeed, the CAB’s authority to grant a temporary permit “ upon its own
initiative” strongly suggests the power to exercise said authority, even before
the presentation of said evidence has begun. Assuming arguendo that a
legislative franchise is prerequisite to the issuance of a permit, the absence of
the same does not affect the jurisdiction of the Board to hear the application,
but tolls only upon the ultimate issuance of the requested permit. The power
to authorize and control the operation of a public utility is admittedly a
prerogative of the legislature, since Congress is that branch of government
vested with plenary powers of legislation. The franchise is a legislative grant,
whether made directly by legislature itself, or by any other properly constituted
instrumentalities. The grant, when made, binds the public, and is, directly or
indirectly, the act of the state. The trend of modern legislation is to vest the
Public Service Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the
operation of public services under reasonable rules and regulations, and as a
general rule, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion when it
is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right. (Philippine Airlines,
Inc. vs. Civil Aeronautic Board, G.R. NO. 119528, March 26, 1997)

The Law

The country takes pride in developing a skilled workforce ranging from

blue collar to white collar jobs, from managerial to entrepreneurial talents,
from scientists to artists. There is a provision in the law that limits the practice
of professions. This may shortly change because of reciprocity especially
when certain agreements in the World Trade Organization covering movement
of people and services will be implemented globally.
 Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national
talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen
in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage
appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to

Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

Explanation

The above constitutional provision mandates that the practice of

profession is reserved exclusively to citizens of the Philippines. The Foreign
Investment Negative List specifically provides that foreign investors are
prohibited in engaging in such undertaking. In addition, the State shall
prioritize Filipino talents for employment in the country. Aliens may be
employed but must obtain a working visa from the Bureau of Immigration and
a working permit at the Department of Labor and Employment.

Application of the Law

Case: Mr. John Tan is looking for a Chief Executive Officer who will
manage his 5-star hotel in the Roxas Boulevard area. He is also looking for a
legal counsel who will take charge in legal matters of his hotel business.
Discuss the qualification of the people he wants to hire for his hotel business.

Legal Opinion

Mr. John Tan must get a Filipino citizen to handle the legal matters in
managing his hotel business. The practice of law is a profession where
foreigners are not allowed to practice in the Philippines.

However, in choosing for a Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Tan may or may
not employ Filipino citizens. It is true that priority should be given to Filipino
citizens in Mr. Tan’s choice as Chief Executive Officer. However, this will hold
true only if there are enough qualified Filipinos in the country can vie for the
position. In case there are no skilled Filipino citizens who will qualify for the
position, Mr. Tan may employ a foreigner or an alien provided the latter
obtains a working visa at the Bureau of Immigration and a working permit at
the Department of Labor and Employment.

“It is the right of every Filipino to travel. Traveling is one of the most
enriching experiences in life. It allows one to discover new places, interesting
people and novel ideas” – Dr. Amparo Santos, former president, Tourism
Educators in Schools, College and Universities.