Case Digest (G.R. No. 81958)
Facts:
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988, Supreme Court En Banc, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), a recruitment firm for overseas Filipino workers, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988 issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) entitled "Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers." The respondents named were Hon. Franklin M. Drilon as Secretary of Labor and Employment and Tomas D. Achacoso as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
PASEI alleged that the Department Order (1) discriminated on the basis of sex because it applied to female workers, (2) improperly applied only to domestic helpers and women with similar skills rather than to all Filipino workers, (3) violated the constitutional right to travel, (4) was an invalid exercise of legislative/police power by the executive, (5) violated the worker-participation guarantee in Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution for lack of prior consultation, and (6) breached the constitutional non-impairment clause and would cause great and irreparable injury to its members.
On May 25, 1988 the Solicitor General filed a Comment for the respondents informing the Court that DOLE had already lifted the deployment ban for certain countries and defending the Order as a valid exercise of the State's police power and as an implementation of the Labor Code's rule-making authority (Presidential Decree No. 442). No lower-court judgments are reported in the decision; the case reached the Court by the pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioner properly challenge Department Order No. 1 by certiorari and prohibition such that the Court should nullify the Order (procedural/justiciability)?
- Did Department Order No. 1 unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of sex or class by applying only to female domestic and household workers in violation of the equal protection guarantee?
- Did Department Order No. 1 unlawfully abridge the right to travel?
- Was Department Order No. 1 an invalid exercise or unlawful delegation of legislative/police power beyond executive authority, and did it violate worker-participation requ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)