PHIL. ASSOC, OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. TORRES | G.R. No.

98472 | August 19, 1993 | BELLOSILLO, J

Petitioners: PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. (PASEI), PHILIPPINE ENTERTAINMENT EXPORTERS AND
PROMOTERS ASSOCIATION (PEEPA), and ASSOCIATION OF FILIPINO OVERSEAS WORKERS, INC. (AFOWI)

Respondent: HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

SUMMARY: President Marcos issued LOI 1190 withholding the grant of new licenses to operate agencies for overseas employment.
President Aquino issued EO 450 lifting the ban. Main issue is WON an EO may repeal an LOI. Court held YES. GR: LOIs are presumed
to be mere administrative issuances. EXCEPTION: Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile exist: (1) whenever in his judgment there exists a grave
emergency or a threat or imminence, OR whenever the interim Batasan Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is
unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action.

DOCTRINE: LOI 1190 imposes a presidential review of the authority to grant licenses, hence, directed to him alone, which is an
administrative action  LOI 1190 is an administrative issuance.

FACTS:

 Article 25 of the LC (P.D. 442) encourages private sector participation in recruitment and placement of workers under
guidelines, rules and regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Labor.
 20 January 1982: President Marcos issued LOI 1190 withholding the grant of new licenses to operate agencies for overseas
employment effective 1 January 1982 except as he may otherwise direct.
 19 March 1991: President Aquino issued EO 450 lifting the ban on new applications for licenses to operate recruitment
agencies subject to guidelines and regulations the Secretary of Labor may promulgate
 8 April 1991: Sec of Labor and Employment promulgated Department (DO) No. 9, S 1991.1
 14 May 1991: PASEO, PEEPA, and AFOWI2 filed Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction/Restraining Order,
praying that EO 450 be declared invalid for being contrary to LOI 1190.
 16 May 1991: Court issued a TRO directing Secretary of Labor and Employment to cease and desist from enforcing EO 450
and DO 9  3 motions for intervention were filed, which Court allowed.3
 REPA4 prays for the modification of TRO.
 4 July 1991: Court explained TRO did not comprehend renewal of existing licenses  EO 450 covered only new applications.
 LOI was issued by former President Marcos when he was clothed with legislative power; EO revoking the LOI was issued by
then President Aquino when she had already lost her law-making power after Congress convened on 27 July 1987.

ISSUES + RULING
WON petitioners lack standing – PASEI and PEEPA have standing; AFOWI does not.

 "Proper-party" requirement is satisfied if it is alleged that they have sustained/are in danger of sustaining immediate injury.
 PASEI and PEEPA: Their agencies (which enjoy protection against competition by new licensees) will suffer irreparable injury
with the repeal of LOI 1190 by EO 450, if there is no additional demand for Filipino workers abroad.
 AFOWI: Proliferation of recruitment agencies will NOT necessarily result in exposure of workers to exploitation  Stiffer
competition may compel agencies to seek better terms and conditions for overseas workers.

WON the petition can be decided without touching on the validity of EO 450 – No, as petitioner’s relief depends on its validity.

 Central thesis of petition: LOI 1190 was issued pursuant to the law-making power of the President under Sec. 6 of the 1976
Amendments to the 1973 Constitution in response to "a grave emergency which cried for immediate and decisive action,"
hence, should be considered part of the law of the land.

1
"Guidelines Implementing Executive Order No. 450."
2 Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), Philippine Entertainment Exporters and Promoters Association (PEEPA), and Association of Filipino Overseas
Workers, Inc. (AFOWI)
3 Intervenors Joblink International, Inc. (JOBLINK), Prospecs International Consultancy, Amader International, Inc. (AMADER), IDG Trading & General Services,

Philcango International Recruitment Services, Pan Asia Manpower Placement, International, Manpower Services, Lyka International, Inc., World Matrix Unlimited
Services Consultancy & Trading Co., Nuba International Manpower Services Corporation, El Barry Manpower Services, Social Services Cont. Int'l Co., Ltd., CDD
Enterprises and Velrey Recruitment Company, all applicants for new licenses, support the position of respondent that LOI 1190 was not a law.
4 RP-Japan Entertainment Promoters Association, Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit domestic corporation composed of private employment agencies authorized to recruit

and deploy contract workers abroad

SUB-ISSUE: WON LOI 1190 repeals/modifies Art 25 of the LC and should be treated as a law – NO

 LOI 1190 imposes a presidential review of the authority of the Minister of Labor and Employment to grant licenses 
Directed to him alone.
 This is an administrative action  LOI 1190 should properly be treated as an administrative issuance.
 GENERAL RULE: LOIs are presumed to be mere administrative issuances.
 EXCEPTION: When the conditions set out in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile exist. (re: WON a presidential issuance under the 1973
Constitution may be considered law)
o Decree, order or LOI must be issued by the President in the exercise of his extraordinary power of legislation as
contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the Constitution:
 (1) whenever in his judgment there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence, OR
 (2) whenever the interim Batasan Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act
adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action.
 In case at bar: Absence of any of these conditions  Hence, LOI 1190 is an administrative issuance.

SUB-ISSUE: WON LOI 1190 was issued to cope with a “grave emergency” (condition set by Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile) – NO

 BASIS OF PETITIONER: 3rd "Whereas" clause - Concern of the state against cut-throat competition seriously affecting the
integrity and viability of the overseas recruitment industry, difficulty in the regulation and supervision of agencies,
protection of the welfare of the workers.
 Appraisal that clause manifests a grave emergency situation is as good as anybody else's contrary view  Besides, there is
no indication that in the judgment of the President it is grave.

SUB-ISSUES: WON LOI 1190 repeals or runs counter to Art 25 of the LC and thus, must necessarily be a law – NO

 There is nothing in the LOI which repeals or runs counter to Art. 25 of the Labor Code.
o LOI 1190 does not ban the grant of licenses nor bar the entry of new licensees  Anybody could still apply for
license, although the grant is subject to the prior authority of the President.
o LOI did not modify the rule-making power  Only added another tier of review. Implicit in power of control is
President's "authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries."
o 319 private employment agencies secured approval from 1982 to 1989  Then President Marcos merely intended
to regulate, and not ban altogether, new applications for licenses.
 Petitioner’s argument: President was in effect saying that 'Art. 25 of the Labor Code is hereby repealed as regards overseas
workers until I otherwise direct.’  WRONG
 By their nature/purpose to maintain stability in the polity, laws have a degree of permanence such that they are not
intended to be repealed one hour after their enactment, then re-enacted the following hour.
 If the law has to be applied on a case to case basis, it does not have to undergo the tedious process of repeal and re-
enactment every time its application is warranted.

SUB-ISSUE: WON LOI 1190 suspended the effectivity of Art 25, which is against mandate of President to ensure that laws be
faithfully executed – NO

 LOI did not suspend the enforcement of Art. 25 of the Labor Code; it merely added another level of review.
 Discussion on WON word "I" in "except as I may otherwise direct" refers to the President as chief executive or as a legislator
is meaningless  Correct interpretation would depend on whether the LOI is a law or an administrative issuance.

SUB-ISSUE: WON EO 450 can repeal LOI 1190 without delegation of that power to the President – No need for legislative
delegation of power, since LOI is an administrative directive.

 No need for legislative delegation of power to the President to revoke the LOI by way of an EO  LOI 1190 is a mere
administrative directive.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Temporary Restraining Order we issued on 16 May 1991 is
accordingly LIFTED and SET ASIDE. Executive Order No. 450 and Department Order No. 9 of the Department of Labor and
Employment are SUSTAINED. Accordingly, Letter of Instruction No. 1190 is declared REPEALED and SUPERSEDED by Executive Order
No. 450.