Salazar v.

Achacoso
Salazars properties in her residence
and dance studio were seized by virtue of a searchwarrant issued by
the POEA.
Facts:
1.
Petitioner (Hortencia Horty Sa
lazar) was charged by a Rosalie Tesoro wth thePhilippine Overseas
Employment Administration. According to Tesoro, after shesurrendered
her PECC Card to petitioner, she
promised her of booking in Japan.
However, after 9 months, Tesoro was still in the Philippines and was
never able totravel to Japan, and that her PECC card was not released
by Salazar.
2.
Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent a telegram to
petitioner.Respondent requested the petitioner before him being a part
of POEA Anti-IllegalRecruitment Unit. On the same day, having
ascertained that the petitioner had nolicense to operate a recruitment
agency, administrator Tomas Achacoso issued aclosure and seizure
order, numbered 1205.
3.
The Director of POEA Licensing and Regulation (Atty. Estelita Espiritu)
issued anorder designation Atty. Marquez, Atty. Abara and Atty. Vistro
as members of theteam tasked to implement the Closure and Seizure
Order rendered by Achacoso.
After proceeding to petitioners residence, the team, assisted by
Mandaluyong
policemen and mediamen, went to Hannalie Dance Studio, which
petitioneroperated.
4.
Before entering Hannalie Dance Studio, the team served said order on
a certainMrs. Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the
premises. Whenrequired to show credentials, Salazar was unable to
produce any. The teamconfiscated assorted costumes when they
chanced upon 12 talent performerspracticing a dance number. The

confiscation was duly receipted for by Mrs.Asuncion Maguelan and

witnessed by Salazar.
5.
Petitioner, through a letter to POEA, requested that the personal
properties seizedat her residence be returned.
Issue: Whether the POEA validly issue warrants of search and seizure
(or arrest) under Article38 of the Labor Code.
Ruling:1.
Under the present Constitution, it is only a judge who may issue
warrants of searchand arrest. It was declared that mayors may not
exercise this power, neither by amere prosecuting body. The exception
is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the
President or the Commissioner of Immigration mayorder arrested,
following a final order of deportation, for purpose of deportation.
2.
Section 38(c), as amended by PD 1920 and 2018, bestowed to the
Minister of Laborthe power to recommend the arrest and detention of
any person engaged in illegalrecruitment. More so, PD 1920 gave the
Minister of Labor arrest and closurepower. That, the Minister of Labor
and Employment has the power to cause thearrest and detention of
such non-licensee or nonholder of authority if after properinvestigation
it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to
nationalsecurity and public order or will lead to further exploitation of
job-seekers.Meanwhile, PD 2018 bestowed upon the Minister of
Labor search and seizurepowers. However, the decrees in question
stood as dying vestiges of authoritarianrule in its twilight
moments. Thuss, the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, mayno
longer issue search or arrest warrants. Article 38(c) of the Labor Code
isdeclared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.