PINOYCASEDIGEST: PASEI vs Drilon Case Digest

http://pinoycasedigest.blogspot.com/2012/10/pasei-vs-drilon-ca...

Higit Pa

Susunod na Blog

Bumuo ng Blog

Mag-sign in

Complete List of Digested Cases

Home

About Us

Contact Us

Disclaimer

Privacy Policy

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

PASEI vs Drilon Case Digest

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS VS. DRILON G.R. NO. L-81958 JUNE 30, 1988 FACTS: The Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) 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. In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of Article XIII, of the Constitution, providing for worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law." Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was passed in the absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finally, to be in violation of the Charter's non-impairment clause, in addition to the "great and irreparable injury" that PASEI members face should the Order be further enforced. ISSUE: Whether or not the Department Order No. 1 in nature of the police power is valid under the Constitution? HELD: In the light of the foregoing, the petition must be dismissed. As a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed validity. In the absence of clear and convincing 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 rights among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the same class. 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 physical and personal abuse. 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. The same, however, cannot be said of our male workers. In the first place, there is no evidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances, our men abroad have been afflicted with an identical predicament. Suffice it to state, then, that insofar as classifications are concerned, this Court is content that distinctions are borne by the evidence. Discrimination in this case is justified. There is likewise no doubt that such a classification is germane to the purpose behind the measure. Unquestionably, it is the avowed objective of Department Order No. 1 to "enhance the protection for Filipino female overseas workers" this Court has no

Case Digests

Administrative Law Banking Laws Constitutional Law Corporation law Credit Transactions Criminal Law Election Law Labor Law Land Titles and Deeds Legal Ethics Legal Profession Obligations and Contact Persons and Family Relations Political Law Sales and Lease Special Proceedings Statutory Construction Transportation Law
Statutes Judiciary Miscellaneous Blog Archive Blog Archive

Bar Syllabus How to Digest a Case

Judicial Issuances

Acts Batas Pambansa Commonwealth Acts Presidential Decrees Republic Acts

Executive Issuances

Administrative Orders Executive Orders General Orders Memorandum Orders Proclamations

Constitution

1935 Constitution 1973 Constitution 1987 Constitution Malolos Constitution

1 of 4

11/19/13, 8:09 PM

PINOYCASEDIGEST: PASEI vs Drilon Case Digest

http://pinoycasedigest.blogspot.com/2012/10/pasei-vs-drilon-ca...

quarrel that in the midst of the terrible mistreatment Filipina workers have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment will be for their own good and welfare. The Order does not narrowly apply to existing conditions. Rather, it is intended to apply indefinitely so long as those conditions exist. This is clear from the Order itself ("Pending review of the administrative and legal measures, in the Philippines and in the host countries . . ."), meaning to say that should the authorities arrive at a means impressed with a greater degree of permanency, the ban shall be lifted. 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. 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. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power. It is true that police power is the domain of the legislature, but it does not mean that such an authority may not be lawfully delegated. As we have mentioned, the Labor Code itself vests the Department of Labor and Employment with rule-making powers in the enforcement whereof. The non-impairment clause of the Constitution, invoked by the petitioner, must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government. 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 Government has convinced the Court in this case that this is its intent. We do not find the impugned Order to be tainted with a grave abuse of discretion to warrant the extraordinary relief prayed for.
Recommend this on Google

Find us on Facebook

Pinoycasedigest
Like 184 people like Pinoycasedigest.

Facebook social plugin

Legal Forms

Acknowledgement of Debt Acknowledgement Receipt Acknowledgment Affidavit Affidavit of Good Faith Affidavit of Loss Affidavit of Merit Agreement Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim Answer with Specific Denial of Document Under Oath Answer with Third Party Complaint Articles of General Partnership Articles of Incorporation Articles of Limited Partnership Bill of Exchange Certificate of Candidacy Certificate to File Action Certification of Non-forum Shopping Chattel Mortgage

Labels: Political Law

No comments: Post a Comment

Comment/ Opposition to Offer Complaint Complaint Declaratory Relief Complaint for Interpleader Complaint for Replevin Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Contract of Lease Contract of Lease of Personal Property Contract of Lease of Real Property

Comment as:

Select profile...

Contract of Real Estate Mortgage Counter- Affidavit Criminal Complaint Affidavit

Publish

Preview

Deed of Absolute Sale Deed of Adjudication Deed of Assignment. Deed of Conditional Sale Deed of Donation Inter Vivos

Newer Post Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Home

Older Post

Deed of Donation Mortis Causa Deed of Repurchase of Land Sold Under Pacto de Retro Deed of Sale of Personal Property Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro Demurrer to Evidence Election Protest General Power of Attorney Holographic Will

2 of 4

11/19/13, 8:09 PM

PINOYCASEDIGEST: PASEI vs Drilon Case Digest

http://pinoycasedigest.blogspot.com/2012/10/pasei-vs-drilon-ca...

Information Jurat Katarungang Pambarangay Legal Opinion Motion for Bail Motion for Extension Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Motion for New Trial Motion for Postponement of Hearing Motion to Declare Defendant in Default Motion to Dismiss Motion to Intervene Motion to Lift Order of Default Motion to Quash Notarial Will Notice of Appeal Petition for Adoption Petition for Certiorari Petition for Change of Name Petition for Extradition Petition for Guardianship Petition for Habeas Corpus Petition for Habeas Data Petition for Mandamus Petition for Prohibition Petition for Quo Warranto Petition for Writ of Amparo Pleading (Blank Form) Pledge Agreement Prayer Probate of Will Promissory Note Proof of Service Proof of Service Through Registered Mail with Explanation Revocation of Power of Attorney Secretarys Certificate Special Power of Attorney Substitution of Counsel Treasurers Affidavit Trial Memorandum Verification Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping Waiver of Pre-emptive Rights

Google+ Badge

pinoycasedigest
Follow +1

Google+ Followers

pinoycasedigest

5 have us in circles

View all

Total Pageviews

3 of 4

11/19/13, 8:09 PM

PINOYCASEDIGEST: PASEI vs Drilon Case Digest

http://pinoycasedigest.blogspot.com/2012/10/pasei-vs-drilon-ca...

4 2 2 4 7 8

Simple template. Powered by Blogger.

4 of 4

11/19/13, 8:09 PM