Case Digest (G.R. No. 81958) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, decided June 30, 1988, the petitioner PASEI, a recruitment firm for Filipino workers abroad, sought certiorari and prohibition against Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) under Secretary Franklin M. Drilon, and administered by Tomas D. Achacoso of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The Order temporarily suspended deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers, specifically targeting female contract workers. PASEI contended the measure discriminated on account of sex, violated the right to travel under the 1987 Constitution, exceeded executive authority by exercising legislative police power, breached the non-impairment clause, and failed to observe the constitutional guarantee of worker participation in policy-making (Art. XIII, Sec. 3). The Solicitor General answered that DOLE acted validly under its po Case Digest (G.R. No. 81958) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Proceedings
- Petitioner: Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers for overseas placement.
- Respondents: Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, Secretary of Labor and Employment; Tomas D. Achacoso, Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
- Nature of Action: Petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988 (“Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers”).
- Challenged Measure and Background
- Department Order No. 1:
- Temporarily suspends deployment of Filipino female domestic helpers and workers of similar skills.
- Provides exemptions for hirings by certain diplomatic, governmental, and bilateral-agreement employers; allows returning workers under existing contracts; sets criteria for lifting the suspension.
- Procedural History:
- Petition filed alleging discrimination, violation of right to travel, improper exercise of legislative power, lack of worker participation, and breach of non-impairment clause.
- Solicitor General’s Comment: On March 8, 1988, the Secretary of Labor lifted the ban in ten countries (e.g., Iraq, Canada, U.S.); by June 14, 1988, five more (e.g., Australia, West Germany).
- Grounds of Challenge
- Discrimination between sexes and limited application to domestic helpers.
- Violation of the constitutional right to travel.
- Invalid exercise of police power by the executive branch and improper delegation of legislative authority.
- Failure to consult workers as required by Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution.
- Violation of the Charter’s non-impairment clause and causing irreparable injury to members.
Issues:
- Whether Department Order No. 1 is a valid exercise of police power under the Constitution.
- Whether the classification of female domestic workers violates the equal protection clause.
- Whether the Order unlawfully restricts the right to travel.
- Whether the executive order improperly exercises legislative power or exceeds delegated rule-making authority.
- Whether the Order contravenes the worker-participation guarantee and the non-impairment clause.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)