G.R. No. 98472 - Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres

LOI 1190 was issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on January 20, 1982.
The LOI was designed to impose a prior presidential review over the authority of the Minister of Labor and Employment in granting new licenses to private employment agencies engaged in the overseas recruitment and placement of Filipino workers.
While petitioners argued that LOI 1190 effectively repealed Article 25 of the Labor Code, the LOI did not modify or suspend the Labor Code but merely introduced an additional step in the licensing process.

On March 19, 1991, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order (EO) No. 450, which lifted the ban on new license applications for private employment agencies under certain guidelines.
Following EO No. 450, on April 8, 1991, the Secretary of Labor and Employment promulgated Department Order (DO) No. 9, Series of 1991, to implement the guidelines contained in EO No. 450.

The Honorable Ruben D. Torres, Secretary of Labor and Employment
Private employment agencies such as Joblink International, Inc. (represented by Febi L. Enriquez) and Prospecs International Consultancy (represented by Quintin C. Feniza), among several others.

A temporary restraining order was issued on May 16, 1991, to halt the enforcement of EO No. 450 and DO No. 9 pending resolution of the controversy, and motions for intervention were subsequently filed by various parties.

The central conflict was whether LOI 1190 should be regarded as a law—thus commanding permanency and requiring a legislative process for repeal—or as a mere administrative issuance subject to modification or revocation by a subsequent EO.
Petitioners contended that LOI 1190, issued under the guise of presidential legislative power during Marcos’ regime, was effectively a law protecting the interests of existing agencies by shielding them from harsh competition.
Respondents and several intervenors argued that LOI 1190 was administratively issued, merely adding an extra layer of review, and did not reach the threshold of a law as prescribed by the conditions set in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile.
An additional dispute involved the question of locus standi, particularly with respect to AFOWI, whose alleged injury (protection of workers from exploitative practices) was deemed speculative by the Court.

Whether LOI 1190, issued by President Marcos under his exercise of authority, qualifies as a law—thus carrying the permanence and legal effect of a statute—or whether it is a mere administrative directive.
Whether the conditions set out in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile—such as a grave emergency or inability of the legislative bodies to act—were present to elevate the LOI to the status of law.

Whether EO No. 450, as an administrative issuance, can validly repeal, alter, or modify LOI 1190 if the latter were indeed considered a law.
Whether the President’s inherent executive power allows him to revoke or modify administrative orders without the need for legislative delegation.

Whether the petitioners, particularly AFOWI, have sustained or are in immediate danger of sustaining irreparable injury as claimed, thus justifying the intervention and relief sought.