Documents

Labor Standards

Description
Cases 1-5
Categories
Published
of 17
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT ManilaEN BANC G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANKLIN . !RILON # Se$%e& %' o( L )o% n* E+-o'+en&, n* TOAS !. ACHACOSO, # A*+n#&% &o% o( &/e P/-ne Oe%#e # E+-o'+en& A*+n#&% &on, respondents.   Gutierrez & Alo Law Offices for petitioner. SARIENTO, J.: The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm engaged principally in the recritment of !ilipino or#ers, male and female, for overseas placement, 1   challenges the $onstittional validity of %epartment &rder 'o. , Series of **, of the %epartment of +aor and Employment, in the character of -I%E+I'ES -&/E0'I'- T1E TE2P&0A03 SSPE'SI&' &! %EP+&32E'T &! !I+IPI'& %&2ESTI$ A'% 1&SE1&+% 4&05E0S, in this petition for certiorari and prohiition. Specifically, the measre is assailed for discrimination against males or females6    that it does not apply to all !ilipino or#ers t only to domestic helpers and females ith similar s#ills6 3   and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held li#eise to e an invalid exercise of the lama#ing poer, police poer eing legislative, and not exective, in character. In its spplement to the petition, PASEI invo#es Section 7, of Article 8III, of the $onstittion, providing for or#er participation in policy and decision9ma#ing processes affecting their rights and enefits as may e provided y la. 2   %epartment &rder 'o. , it is contended, as passed in the asence of prior consltations. It is claimed, finally, to e in violation of the $harter:s non9impairment clase, in addition to the great and irreparale in;ry that PASEI memers face shold the &rder e frther enforced. &n 2ay <=, **, the Solicitor -eneral, on ehalf of the respondents Secretary of +aor and Administrator of the Philippine &verseas Employment Administration, filed a $omment informing the $ort that on 2arch *, **, the respondent +aor Secretary lifted the deployment an in the states of Ira>, ?ordan, @atar, $anada, 1ong#ong, nited States, Italy, 'oray, Astria, and Siterland.   In smitting the validity of the challenged gidelines, the Solicitor -eneral invo#es the police poer of the Philippine State. It is admitted that %epartment &rder 'o.  is in the natre of a police poer measre. The only >estion is hether or not it is valid nder the $onstittion. The concept of police poer is ell9estalished in this ;risdiction. It has een defined as the state athority to enact legislation that may interfere ith personal lierty or property in order to promote the general elfare. 5    As defined, it consists of () an imposition of restraint pon lierty or property, (<) in order to foster the common good. It is not capale of an exact definition t has een, prposely, veiled in general terms to nderscore its all9comprehensive emrace. Its scope, ever9expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the ftre here it cold e done, provides enogh room for an efficient and flexile response to conditions and circmstances ths assring the greatest enefits. 4 It finds no specific $onstittional grant for the plain reason that it does not oe its srcin to the $harter. Along ith the taxing poer and eminent domain, it is inorn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fndamental attrite of government that has enaled it to perform the most vital fnctions of governance. 2arshall, to hom the expression has een credited,    refers to it sccinctly as the plenary poer of the State to govern its citiens. 8    The police poer of the State ... is a poer coextensive ith self9 protection, and it is not inaptly termed the la of overhelming necessity. It may e said to e that inherent and plenary poer in the State hich enales it to prohiit all things hrtfl to the comfort, safety, and elfare of society. 9 It constittes an implied limitation on the Bill of 0ights. According to !ernando, it is rooted in the conception that men in organiing the state and imposing pon its government limitations to safegard constittional rights did not intend therey to enale an individal citien or a grop of citiens to ostrct nreasonaly the enactment of sch saltary measres calclated to ensre commnal peace, safety, good order, and elfare. 10   Significantly, the Bill of 0ights itself does not prport to e an asolte garanty of individal rights and lierties Even lierty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not nrestricted license to act according to one:s ill. 11   It is s;ect to the far more overriding demands and re>irements of the greater nmer. 'otithstanding its extensive seep, police poer is not ithot its on limitations. !or all its aesome conse>ences, it may not e exercised aritrarily or nreasonaly. &therise, and in that event, it defeats the prpose for hich it is exercised, that is, to advance the plic good. Ths, hen the poer is sed to frther private interests at the expense of the citienry, there is a clear misse of the poer. 1  In the light of the foregoing, the petition mst e dismissed.  As a general rle, official acts en;oy a presmed vahdity. 13   In the asence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the presmption logically stands. The petitioner has shon no satisfactory reason hy the contested measre shold e nllified. There is no >estion that %epartment &rder 'o.  applies only to female contract or#ers, 12   t it does not therey ma#e an nde discriminationeteen the sexes. It is ell9settled that e>ality efore the la nder the $onstittion 15   does not import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and omen. It admits of classifications, provided that () sch classifications rest on sstantial distinctions6 (<) they are germane to the prposes of the la6 (7) they are not confined to existing conditions6 and (C) they apply e>ally to all memers of the same class. 14  The $ort is satisfied that the classification made9the preference for female or#ers D rests on sstantial distinctions.  As a matter of ;dicial notice, the $ort is ell aare of the nhappy plight that has efallen or female laor force aroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative or#ing conditions mar#ed y, in not a fe cases, physical and personal ase. The sordid tales of maltreatment sffered y migrant !ilipina or#ers, even rape and varios forms of tortre, confirmed y testimonies of retrning or#ers, are compelling motives for rgent -overnment action. As precisely the careta#er of $onstittional rights, the $ort is called pon to protect victims of exploitation. In flfilling that dty, the $ort sstains the -overnment:s efforts. The same, hoever, cannot e said of or male or#ers. In the first place, there is no evidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances, or men aroad have een afflicted ith an Identical predicament. The petitioner has proffered no argment that the -overnment shold act similarly ith respect to male or#ers. The $ort, of corse, is not impressing some male chavinistic notion that men are sperior to omen. 4hat the $ort is saying is that it as largely a matter of evidence (that omen domestic or#ers are eing ill9treated aroad in massive instances) and not pon some fancifl or aritrary yardstic# that the -overnment acted in this case. It is evidence capale indeed of n>estionale demonstration and evidence this $ort accepts. The $ort cannot, hoever, say the same thing as far as men are concerned. There is simply no evidence to ;stify sch an inference. Sffice it to state, then, that insofar as classifications are concerned, this $ort is content that distinctions are orne y the evidence. %iscrimination in this case is ;stified.  As e have frthermore indicated, exective determinations are generally final on the $ort. nder a replican regime, itis the exective ranch that enforces policy. !or their part, the corts decide, in the proper cases, hether that policy, or the manner y hich it is implemented, agrees ith the $onstittion or the las, t it is not for them to >estion its isdom. As a co9e>al ody, the ;diciary has great respect for determinations of the $hief Exective or his salterns, especially hen the legislatre itself has specifically given them enogh room on ho the la shold e effectively enforced. In the case at ar, there is no gainsaying the fact, and the $ort ill deal ith this at greater length shortly, that %epartment &rder 'o.  implements the rle9ma#ing poers granted y the +aor $ode. Bt hat shold e noted is the fact that in spite of sch a fiction of finality, the $ort is on its on persaded that prevailing conditions indeed call for a deployment an. There is li#eise no dot that sch a classification is germane to the prpose ehind the measre. n>estionaly, it is the avoed o;ective of %epartment &rder 'o.  to enhance the protection for !ilipino female overseas or#ers 1  this  $ort has no >arrel that in the midst of the terrile mistreatment !ilipina or#ers have sffered aroad, a an on deployment ill e for their on good and elfare. The &rder does not narroly apply to existing conditions. 0ather, it is intended to apply indefinitely so long as those conditions exist. This is clear from the &rder itself ( Pending revie of the administrative and legal measres, in the Philippines and in the host contries . . .  18 ), meaning to say that shold the athorities arrive at a means impressed ith a greater degree of permanency, the an shall e lifted. As a stop9gap measre, it is possessed of a necessary malleaility, depending on the circmstances of each case. Accordingly, it provides . +I!TI'- &! SSPE'SI&'. D The Secretary of +aor and Employment (%&+E) may, pon recommendation of the Philippine &verseas Employment Administration (P&EA), lift the sspension in contries here there are . Bilateral agreements or nderstanding ith the Philippines, andFor, <. Existing mechanisms providing for sfficient safegards to ensre the elfare and protection of !ilipino or#ers. 19  The $ort finds, finally, the impgned gidelines to e applicale to all female domestic overseas or#ers. That it does not apply to all !ilipina or#ers 0   is not an argment for nconstittionality. 1ad the an een given niversal applicaility, then it old have een nreasonale and aritrary. !or ovios reasons, not all of them are similarly circmstanced. 4hat the $onstittion prohiits is the singling ot of a select person or grop of persons ithin an existing class, to the pre;dice of sch a person or grop or reslting in an nfair advantage to another person or grop of persons. To apply the an, say exclsively to or#ers deployed y A, t not to those recrited y B, old oviosly clash ith the e>al protection clase of the $harter. It old e a classic case of hat $hase refers to as a la that ta#es property from A and gives it to B. 1  It old e an nlafl invasion of property rights and freedom of contract and needless to state, an invalid act.    (!ernando says 4here the classification is ased on sch distinctions that ma#e a real difference as infancy, sex, and stage of civiliation of minority grops, the etter rle, it old seem, is to recognie itsvalidity only if the yong, the omen, and the cltral minorities are singled ot for favorale treatment. There old e anelement of nreasonaleness if on the contrary their stats that calls for the la ministering to their needs is made the asis of discriminatory legislation against them. If sch e the case, it old e difficlt to refte the assertion of denial of e>al protection. 3   In the case at ar, the assailed &rder clearly accords protection to certain omen or#ers, and not the contrary.) It is incorrect to say that %epartment &rder 'o.  prescries a total an on overseas deployment. !rom scattered provisions of the &rder, it is evident that sch a total an has hot een contemplated. 4e >ote =. AT1&0IGE% %EP+&32E'T9The deployment of domestic helpers and or#ers of similar s#ills defined herein to the folloing Hsic are athoried nder these gidelines and are exempted from the sspension. =. 1irings y immediate memers of the family of 1eads of State and -overnment6 =.< 1irings y 2inister, %epty 2inister and the other senior government officials6 and =.7 1irings y senior officials of the diplomatic corps and dly accredited international organiations. =.C 1irings y employers in contries ith hom the Philippines have Hsic ilateral laor agreements or nderstanding. xxx xxx xxxJ. /A$ATI&'I'- %&2ESTI$ 1E+PE0S A'% 4&05E0S &! SI2I+A0 S5I++S99/acationing domestic helpers andFor or#ers of similar s#ills shall e alloed to process ith the P&EA and leave for or#site only if they are retrning to the same employer to finish an existing or partially served employment contract. Those or#ers retrning to or#site to serve a ne employer shall e covered y the sspension and the provision of these gidelines.  xxx xxx xxx. +I!TI'- &! SSPE'SI&'9The Secretary of +aor and Employment (%&+E) may, pon recommendation of the Philippine &verseas Employment Administration (P&EA), lift the sspension in contries here there are . Bilateral agreements or nderstanding ith the Philippines, andFor, <. Existing mechanisms providing for sfficient safegards to ensre the elfare and protection of !ilipino or#ers. 2 xxx xxx xxxThe conse>ence the deployment an has on the right to travel does not impair the right. The right to travel is s;ect, among other things, to the re>irements of plic safety, as may e provided y la. 5   %epartment &rder 'o.  is a valid implementation of the +aor $ode, in particlar, its asic policy to afford protection to laor, 4  prsant to the respondent %epartment of +aor:s rle9ma#ing athority vested in it y the +aor $ode.    The petitioner assmes that it isnreasonale simply ecase of its impact on the right to travel, t as e have stated, the right itself is not asolte. The dispted &rder is a valid >alification thereto. 'either is there merit in the contention that %epartment &rder 'o.  constittes an invalid exercise of legislative poer. It is tre that police poer is the domain of the legislatre, t it does not mean that sch an athority may not e laflly delegated. As e have mentioned, the +aor $ode itself vests the %epartment of +aor and Employment ith rlema#ing poers in the enforcement hereof. 8  The petitioners:s reliance on the $onstittional garanty of or#er participation in policy and decision9ma#ing processes affecting their rights and enefits 9   is not ell9ta#en. The right granted y this provision, again, mst smit to the demands and necessities of the State:s poer of reglation. The $onstittion declares that Sec. 7. The State shall afford fll protection to laor, local and overseas, organied and norganied, and promote fll employment and e>ality of employment opportnities for all. 30   Protection to laor does not signify the promotion of employment alone. 4hat concerns the $onstittion more paramontly is that sch an employment e aove all, decent, ;st, and hmane. It is ad enogh that the contry has to send its sons and daghters to strange lands ecase it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home. nder these circmstances, the -overnment is dty9ond to insre that or toiling expatriates have ade>ate protection, personally and economically, hile aay from home. In this case, the -overnment has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannot seriosly dispte, of the lac# or inade>acy of sch protection, and as part of its dty, it has precisely ordered an indefinitean on deployment. The $ort finds frthermore that the -overnment has not indiscriminately made se of its athority. It is not contested thatit has in fact removed the prohiition ith respect to certain contries as manifested y the Solicitor -eneral. The non9impairment clase of the $onstittion, invo#ed y the petitioner, mst yield to the loftier prposes targetted y the-overnment. 31   !reedom of contract and enterprise, li#e all other freedoms, is not free from restrictions, more so in this  ;risdiction, here laissez faire  has never een flly accepted as a controlling economic ay of life. This $ort nderstands the grave implications the >estioned &rder has on the siness of recritment. The concern of the -overnment, hoever, is not necessarily to maintain profits of siness firms. In the ordinary se>ence of events, it is profits that sffer as a reslt of -overnment reglation. The interest of the State is to provide a decent living to its citiens. The -overnment has convinced the $ort in this case that this is its intent. 4e do not find the impgned &rder to e tainted ith a grave ase of discretion to arrant the extraordinary relief prayed for. 41E0E!&0E, the petition is %IS2ISSE%. 'o costs. S& &0%E0E%.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks