Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988 Yes. The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction.

concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been


defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." 5 As defined, it consists of
vs. (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and common good.
TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, respondents. It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its
origin to the Charter. it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty.

SARMIENTO, J.: However, police power constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights. when the
power is used to further private interests at the expense of the citizenry, there is a
Facts: clear misuse of the power.
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short),
In the case, the petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested
challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of
measure should be nullified. There is no question that Department Order No. 1
the Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not thereby make an undue
GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law"
DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari and under the Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and
prohibition. Specifically, the measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or women. It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such classifications rest on
females;" 2 that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are
and females with similar skills;" 3 and that it is violative of the right to travel. PASEI not confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the
invokes also Section 3, of Article XIII, of the Constitution, providing for worker same class. 16
participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law." 4 Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was The Court is satisfied that the classification made-the preference for female workers
passed in the absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finally, to be in violation of — rests on substantial distinctions.
the Charter's non-impairment clause, in addition to the "great and irreparable injury"
that PASEI members face should the Order be further enforced. As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of maltreatment suffered by
migrant Filipina workers, even rape and various forms of torture, confirmed by
the Solicitor General filed a Comment informing the Court that the respondent Labor testimonies of returning workers, are compelling motives for urgent Government
Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the states of Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada, action. As precisely the caretaker of Constitutional rights, the Court is called upon to
Hongkong, United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and Switzerland and invokes the protect victims of exploitation. In fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the
police power of the Philippine State. Hence, this case. Government's efforts.

Issue: whether or not it is valid under the Constitution The Court cannot, however, say the same thing as far as men are concerned. There
Ruling: is simply no evidence to justify such an inference.

Page 1 of 2
The Court finds, finally, the impugned guidelines to be applicable to all female
domestic overseas workers. That it does not apply to "all Filipina workers" 20 is not an
argument for unconstitutionality. Had the ban been given universal applicability, then
it would have been unreasonable and arbitrary.

(right to travel) The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel does
not impair the right. The right to travel is subject, among other things, to the
requirements of "public safety," "as may be provided by law." 25 Department Order
No. 1 is a valid implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to
"afford protection to labor," 26 pursuant to the respondent Department of Labor's rule-
making authority vested in it by the Labor Code. 27

(non-impairment clause) The non-impairment clause of the Constitution, invoked by


the petitioner, must yield to the loftier purposes targetted by the
Government. 31 Freedom of contract and enterprise, like all other freedoms, is not
free from restrictions, more so in this jurisdiction, where laissez faire has never been
fully accepted as a controlling economic way of life.

This Court understands the grave implications the questioned Order has on the
business of recruitment. The concern of the Government, however, is not necessarily
to maintain profits of business firms. In the ordinary sequence of events, it is profits
that suffer as a result of Government regulation. The interest of the State is to provide
a decent living to its citizens. The SC dismissed the petition.

Page 2 of 2

S-ar putea să vă placă și