FERNANDEZ VS. TORRES the DOLE Circular.

G.R. No. 102940 November 6, 1992 - 215 SCRA 489

HELD:

FACTS:
The Court finds that the petition does not present a
justiciable controversy. In actions involving
Petitioners seek certiorari and prohibition to prohibit constitutional issues, the firmly settled rule is that a
and restrain the Secretary of the Department of
constitutional question will not be heard and
Labor and Employment ("DOLE") and the resolved by the courts unless the following
Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment
requirements of judicial inquiry are met:
Administration ("POEA") from enforcing and
(1) the existence of an actual case or controversy;(2)
implementing Item No. 1 of DOLE Circular No. 01-91
the party raising the constitutional issue must have a
entitled "Prescribing Additional Requirements,
personal and substantial interest in the resolution
Conditions and Procedures for the Deployment of
thereof;(3) the controversy must be raised at the
Performing Artists."
earliest reasonable opportunity; and(4) that the
resolution of the constitutional issue must be
The promulgation of DOLE Circular No. 01-91 was
indispensable for the final determination of the
preceded by public agitation for a total ban on
controversy.
deployment of Filipino entertainers abroad, in
In the first place, Item No. 1 of the challenged DOLE
response to the growing number of documented
Circular does not establish an absolute and
reports and complaints from entertainers and their
comprehensive prohibition of deployment abroad of
relatives about the exploitative working conditions,
entertainers below twenty-three (23) years of age.
harassment, forcible detention, physical injuries, rape
Item No. 1 itself provides that "the Secretary of Labor
and even death suffered by female performing artists and Employment may, for justifiable reasons, exempt
and entertainers abroad. The First National Tripartite
from performing artists from coverage hereof." The
Conference for the Protection of Overseas
discretionary authority here asserted by the DOLE
Entertainers was convened on 18 November 1991 to Secretary does not purport to be unlimited and
evaluate a Government proposal for a complete
arbitrary in nature. To the contrary, fairly explicit and
interdiction of overseas deployment of Philippine
precisely drawn grounds for exempting particular
entertainers and performing artists. At the end of the
performing artists from the coverage of Item No. 1
Conference, the consensus among the management
are set out in a set of "Administrative Guidelines
and labor representatives which emerged was that
Implementing Department Circular No. 01-91."
Government should adopt a policy of selective
(rather than comprehensive) prohibition of Secondly, petitioners have failed to allege or have
deployment abroad of Philippine entertainers, to refrained from alleging, that they had previously
avoid the adverse effects which complete prohibition applied to public respondent officials for exemption
would impose on the country's manpower export
from the minimum age restriction imposed by Item
program. The labor representative recommended
No. 1 of DOLE Circular No. 01-91. Necessarily,
that the minimum age for performing artists seeking
therefore, petitioners also do not allege that public
overseas deployment be raised from eighteen (18)
respondent officials have arbitrarily denied their
years to twenty-three (23) years.
applications for exemption from the minimum age
requirement or from any other requirement
Through counsel, they challenge the constitutional
establishment by Item No. 1. Neither have petitioners
validity of Item No. 1 of DOLE Circular No. 01-91. alleged that public respondents have continually
threatened to deny all and sundry applications for
ISSUE:
exemption, so as to create a reasonable expectation
that their applications would be immediately and
Whether or not the petitioners have an actual cause
arbitrarily denied, should they in fact file them.
or controversy to challenge the constitutionality of
Petitioners do assert that the exemption clause of
DOLE Circular No. 01-91 is "practically useless and
[constitutes] empty verbiage." They have not,
however, attempted to support this assertion.

The Court is not compelled to indulge in speculation

that public respondent would deny any and all
applications for exemption from coverage of DOLE
Circular No. 01-91. Two (2) important presumptions
are here applicable. The first is that administrative
orders and regulations are entitled to the
presumption of constitutionality. The second is that
official duty has been or will be regularly performed.