9/15/22, 8:50 AM G.R. No. 81958 PASEI vs Drilon | Labor Standards | by JoshS.

| Medium

Open in app Get started

G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner,

vs.

HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D.

ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration, respondents.

1. Summarize the case decided by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a
firm “engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for
overseas placement,” challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order №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 a petition for certiorari and
prohibition.

These were the issues presented by PASEI:

a) 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;”
https://yokota353626328.medium.com/g-r-no-81958-pasei-vs-drilon-labor-standards-ff9e9f98b6fb 2/5
9/15/22, 8:50 AM G.R. No. 81958 PASEI vs Drilon | Labor Standards | by JoshS. | Medium

b) that it is violative of the right to travel.

Open in app Get started

c) It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power

being legislative, and not executive, in character.

d) 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.” Department
Order №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.

The case had been dismissed. Relevant points are covered in number 4 below.

2. Cite the facts

Other than the above, no other facts were mentioned in this case.

3. Cite the legal issues related to labor laws

a) discrimination against males or females;

b) it “does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females
with similar skills

c) 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. Cite the decision of the court in resolving the issue.

The issues in number 3 above were resolved by the Supreme Court as follows:

a) The Court is satisfied that the classification made-the preference for female workers
— rests on substantial distinctions. 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.

https://yokota353626328.medium.com/g-r-no-81958-pasei-vs-drilon-labor-standards-ff9e9f98b6fb 3/5
9/15/22, 8:50 AM G.R. No. 81958 PASEI vs Drilon | Labor Standards | by JoshS. | Medium

The same, however, cannot be said of our male workers. In the first place, there is no
Open in app Get started
evidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances, our men abroad have been
afflicted with an Identical predicament. The petitioner has proffered no argument that
the Government should act similarly with respect to male workers. What the Court is
saying is that it was largely a matter of evidence (that women domestic workers are
being ill-treated abroad in massive instances) and not upon some fanciful or arbitrary
yardstick that the Government acted in this case.

b) Had the ban been given universal applicability, then it would have been
unreasonable and arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of them are similarly
circumstanced. What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or
group of persons within an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or
resulting in an unfair advantage to another person or group of persons.

c) Police power has been defined as the “state authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.” As
defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in
order to foster the common good.

As a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed validity. In the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption logically stands. The petitioner
has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested measure should be nullified.

Disclaimers:
I, the author am not responsible for any negative consequence as a result of people
reading and/or being influenced by this piece of independent academic literature. You
as the reader are given the right to consume this piece, but are not allowed to copy
paste or plagiarize it under Philippine copyright law; of which, offenders could be
sentenced to imprisonment of up to 6 years and a fine of up to PHP 1,500,000.00
depending on the damages. By interacting with this page you agree to have your IP
address and ISP collected as per legal liability for prosecution by Medium.com and it’s
partner, Turnitin under any circumstance of piracy.

https://yokota353626328.medium.com/g-r-no-81958-pasei-vs-drilon-labor-standards-ff9e9f98b6fb 4/5