EBUÑA, Ma. Samantha Louise L.

LABREL SPL- F
Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez

FILCRO on the
Case of Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs. Hon. Franklin Drilon
(G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988)

FACTS: Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.,a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of
Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement," challenges the Constitutional validity of
Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment in the character of
"GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. Specifically, the measure is assailed
for "discrimination against males or females;" that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar skills;" and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held
likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not
executive, in character.

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, filed a Comment informing the Court that on March 8, 1988, the
respondent Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the states of Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada,
Hongkong, United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and Switzerland. * In submitting the validity of the
challenged "guidelines," the Solicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine State.

ISSUE: Whether or not Department Order No. 1 is valid under the Constitution.

LAW: Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment

CASE HISTORY: The assailed Department Order No. 1 was promulgated in year 1998

The case was submitted to the Supreme Court for resolution on June 30, 1988

RULING: Department Order No. 1 according to the Supreme Court is valid under the Constitution. The
petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested measure should be nullified. There is no
question that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not thereby
make an undue discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law" under
the Constitution 15does not import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and women.

1
As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen our female
labor force abroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not
a few cases, physical and personal abuse. The sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina
workers, even rape and various forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies of returning workers, are
compelling motives for urgent Government action. As precisely the caretaker of Constitutional rights, the
Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation. In fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the
Government's efforts.

It is incorrect to say that Department Order No. 1 prescribes a total ban on overseas deployment. From
scattered provisions of the Order, it is evident that such a total ban has not been contemplated.

OPINION: In the case at bar, I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in upholding the validity of
Department Order No. 1 as to the temporary suspension of deployment of overseas Filipina workers in
other neighboring Asian countries. It is a given fact already that the Philippines deploys numerous Filipino
workers overseas in order to secure a stable job. The only sad truth regarding it, is that abuses from
foreigner employers cannot be completely avoided. It was a good move on the part of the government to
issue such regulation, so that other countries would not take the abuses against Filipina workers lightly.
The government has a primordial duty and it is to protect its citizens from any sorts of threat. Deploying
Filipinos abroad is a continued practice even up to this day.

2
EBUÑA, Ma. Samantha Louise L.
LABREL SPL- F
Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez

FILCRO on the case of

THE CONFERENCE OF MARITIME MANNING AGENCIES, INC VS. POEA
(G.R. No. 114714 April 21, 1995)

FACTS: Petitioner Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., an incorporated association of licensed
Filipino manning agencies, and its co-petitioners, all licensed manning agencies which hire and recruit
Filipino seamen for and in behalf of their respective foreign ship-owner-principals, urge us to annul
Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board" of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994 on the ground that POEA
does not have the power and authority to fix & promulgate rates affecting death and workmen's
compensation of Filipino seamen working in ocean-going vessels; only Congress can.

In their, comment. the public respondents contend that the petition is without merit and should be
dismissed because (a) the issuance of the challenged resolution and memorandum circular was a valid
exercise of the POEA's rule-making authority or power of subordinate legislation which this Court had
sustained in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA; (b) the "non-appointment" of the third member of the
Governing Board bees not necessarily invalidate the acts of the Board, for it has been functioning "under
the advisement of t the Tripartite Technical Working Group which group is incidentally constituted by the
private sector.

ISSUE: Whether or not the assailed resolution and memorandum circular is violative of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.

LAW: Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board" of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994

CASE HISTORY: The case was submitted to the Supreme Court for resolution on April 21, 1995.

The assailed Resolution promulgated by the POEA was enacted in the year 1994.

3
RULING: The challenged resolution and memorandum circular being valid implementations of E.O. No.
797, which was enacted under the police power of the State, they cannot be struck down on the ground
that they violate the contract clause. To hold otherwise is to alter long-established constitutional doctrine
and to subordinate the police power to the contract clause.

It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not
violated by legislation based on reasonable classification. And for the classification to be reasonable, it (1)
must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be
limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. There
can be no dispute about the dissimilarities between land-based and sea-based Filipino overseas workers
in terms of, among other things, work environment, safety, dangers and risks to life and limb, and
accessibility to social, civic, and spiritual activities.

OPINION: I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision stating that such Memorandum Circular enacted
by the POEA is valid and not violative of the equal protection. What the order emphasizes to strictly
conform to the sufficient and valid standard of "fair and equitable employment practices. As verily
expounded by the Court, the freedom to contract is not absolute which must be explicitly subject to the
police power of the State. It is only just to enact regulations from time to time which is timely applicable
to labor situations as of the moment.