G.R. No. L-81958.

June 30, 1988

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Honorable Franklin M. Drilon and
Tomas D. Achacoso

Parties

Petitioner - PASEI - firm engaged in recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas
placement
Respondents - Hon. Franklin M. Drilon - SOLE
Tomas D. Achacoso - Administrator, POEA

FACTS

PASEI challenges the constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, S. 1988 of DOLE, or
"Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and
Household Workers" through a petition for certiorari and prohibition due to:

1. Discrimination against males and females and it did not apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar skills;
2. Being violative of the right to travel;
3. Invalid exercise of lawmaking power;
4. Being passed in absence of prior consultations, thus, violating Art. 13 of the 1987 Constitution
which provides for the worker participation "in policy and decision making processes affecting
their rights and benefits as may be provided by law;
5. Being violative of the Charter's non-impairment clause.

May 25, 1988 - SolGen filed a Comment that the on March 8, 1988, respondent Labor Secretary
lifted the deployment ban in Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada, Hongkong, US, Italy, Norway, Austria
and Switzerland. SolGen invoked the Police Power of the State.

ISSUES:

1. WON Department Order No. 1 is valid under the Constitution as a police power measure
2. WON Department Order No. 1 made valid classification
3. WON the order impairs the right to travel
4. WON Department Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power.
5. WON Department Order No. 1 violates the Constitutional guaranty of worker participation "in
policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits"
6. WON the assailed order is in violation of the non-impairment clause

HELD:

1. Yes. Department Order No. 1 is constitutional.

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.
2. Yes. Department Order No. 1 made valid classification.

It is true that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not
thereby make an undue discrimination between the sexes.

The Constitution admits of classifications, provided that:

a. The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
b. The classification is germane to the purposes of the law;
c. The classifications are not confined to existing conditions;
d. The classifications apply equally to all members of the same class.

The Court is satisfied that a valid classification is made - that such classification rests on
substantial distinctions since the distinction is borne by the evidence that women domestic helpers
are being ill-treated in massive instances in contrast to male workers, except for isolated
instances.

The classification is likewise germane to the purpose of the assailed measure in enhancing the
protection for Filipino female overseas workers and such ban on deployment will be for their own
good and welfare amidst the terrible mistreatment of Filipina workers have suffered abroad.

The classification likewise is not confined to existing conditions, as the assailed measure provides
that it will apply indefinitely so long as those conditions exists and the suspension will be lifted
where there are bilateral agreements or understanding with the Philippines and/or there are
existing mechanisms providing for sufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of
Filipino workers.

The classification also applies equally to all members of the same class, that is, all female
domestic overseas workers. Had the ban been applied universally, the measure would have been
unreasonable and arbitrary since not all of them are similarly circumstanced.

3. No, the order did not impair the right to travel.

The consequence of the deployment ban did not impair the right to travel since it is subject to the
requirement of “public safety as may be provided by law”. Department Order No. 1 is a valid
implementation of the Labor Code in its policy to “afford protection to labor” pursuant to the
respondent Department of Labor’s rulemaking policy authority vested in it by the Labor Code.

4. No. The assailed order is a valid exercise of legislative power.

The Labor Code itself vests the DOLE with the rule-making powers in the enforcement whereof.

5. No. The assailed order does not violate the Constitutional guaranty of worker participation "in
policy and decision-making processes affecting their reights and benefits".

The invoked Constitutional right must submit to the demands of the necessities of the State's
power of regulation. The Constitution provides that the State shall afford full protection to labor,
local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.

"Protection to labor" signifies decent, just and humane employment, not just promotion of
employment alone and thus, the Government is responsible in insuring that our expatriates have
adequate protection while away from home.

6. No, the order does not violate the non-impairment clause as it must yield to the loftier purposes
targetted by the Government. Freedom of contract and enterprise is not free from restrictions
especially in this jurisdiction where laissez faire has never been fully accepted as a controlling
economic way of life.

Petition is dismissed.