G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988
Facts:
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), a firm“engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers for overseas placement,” challengesthe Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of “GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARYSUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS,”and specifically assailed for “discrimination against males or females;” that it “does not applyto all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills;” and that it isviolative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmakingpower, police power being legislative, and not executive, in character.On May 25, 1988, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, filed a Commentinforming the Court that on March 8, 1988, the respondent Labor Secretary lifted thedeployment 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,” theSolicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine State.
Issue:
Whether the challenged Department Order is a valid regulation in the nature of a police power measure under the Constitution.
Held:
The 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 liberty or property in order topromote the general welfare.”
As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint uponliberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact definitionbut has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace.Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the futurewhere it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response toconditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits.It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its origin to theCharter. Along with the taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has enabled it toperform the most vital functions of governance. The police power of the State … is a power coextensive with self- protection. It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in theState which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.As a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed validity. In the absence of clear andconvincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption logically stands.
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 does not import a perfect Identity of rightsamong all men and women.“Protection to labor” does not signify the promotion of employment alone. What concerns theConstitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, just, andhumane. Under these circumstances, the Government is duty-bound to insure that our toilingexpatriates have adequate protection, personally and economically, while away from home. Inthis case, the Government has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the lack or inadequacy of such protection, and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered anindefinite ban on deployment.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.
Decision:
The Government has convinced the Court in this case that this is its intent. We do not find theimpugned Order to be tainted with a grave abuse of discretion to warrant the extraordinary relief prayed for.WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
knowyerlaw 