Title
Salazar vs. Achacoso
Case
G.R. No. 81510
Decision Date
Mar 14, 1990
POEA’s closure and seizure order against Salazar deemed unconstitutional, violating her rights to due process and protection against unreasonable searches.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 81510)

Relevant Factual Sequence

  • Oct. 21, 1987: Rosalie Tesoro filed a sworn complaint with POEA alleging that petitioner confiscated her PECC card after returning from Japan and refused to facilitate her rebooking or release the card when she moved to another company.
  • Nov. 3, 1987: Atty. Ferdie Marquez sent a telegram directing petitioner to appear before the POEA Anti-Illegal Recruitment Unit on Nov. 6, 1987. On the same day, Administrator Achacoso issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 directing closure of petitioner’s recruitment agency and seizure of documents and paraphernalia used or intended to be used in illegal recruitment.
  • Jan. 26, 1988: A POEA enforcement team (including Atty. Marquez and other designated attorneys, assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and media representatives) executed the closure order at petitioner’s residence/studio, found performers and costumes, and confiscated assorted costumes receipted by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar.
  • Jan. 28, 1988: Petitioner (through counsel) demanded immediate return of seized personal properties, asserting violations of due process, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and violation of domicile; threatened civil and criminal action if items were not returned.
  • Feb. 2, 1988: Petitioner filed the instant petition for prohibition (treated by the Court as certiorari given the public interest) to challenge the legality of the closure and seizure; POEA filed a criminal complaint against petitioner the same day.

Procedural Posture and Primary Legal Question

  • Although petitioner filed for prohibition after the contested acts were effected, the Court treated the petition as one for certiorari due to the grave public interest implicated.
  • The sole legal issue framed by the Court: Whether the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or, by extension, the Secretary/Minister of Labor) may validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38(c) of the Labor Code.

Constitutional Provision Governing Warrants

  • The Court relied on Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by a judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and that the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
  • The 1987 Constitution eliminates prior language that had authorized “such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law” to perform preliminary investigations and issue warrants; the effect is to confine the power to determine probable cause and to issue warrants to judges alone.

Statutory and Executive History of Article 38(c)

  • Article 38(c) of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1920 and 2018, vested the Minister (now Secretary) of Labor or his authorized representatives with powers to recommend and to cause arrest and detention of non-licensees, to order closure of entities engaged in illegal recruitment, and, under PD No. 2018, to order search and seizure of documents and implements used in illegal recruitment.
  • Those amendments were promulgated during the Marcos regime under legislative authority derived from the 1973 Constitution and its Amendment No. 6, which permitted expanded executive legislative powers at the time.

Court’s Analysis on Separation of Powers and Who May Issue Warrants

  • The Court emphasized the constitutional command that only judges may issue warrants of arrest and search under the 1987 Constitution; this curtails the earlier practice under the 1973-era framework where executive officials or other officers could issue similar processes.
  • The Court found that the powers conferred by PDs 1920 and 2018 (now reflected in Article 38(c)) to the Secretary of Labor or his representatives to effect arrests and seizures are inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution’s allocation of warrant-issuing power exclusively to judges.
  • The Court referenced prior decisions (as quoted in the decision) holding that prosecutorial or executive bodies cannot act as neutral magistrates to determine probable cause and issue warrants, because they are adversarial and their functions are not that of a detached judge.

Distinction and Limited Exception: Deportation Cases

  • The Court recognized a narrow, exceptional circumstance where the Executive may order arrests without prior judicial warrants: the arrest of aliens for deportation following a final deportation order, grounded in the Executive’s plenary authority over foreign affairs and immigration enforcement.
  • The Court clarified that such deportation-related arrests (citing cases in the decision) are exceptional and do not permit extension of executive warrant-issuing powers to ordinary domestic enforcement actions such as those involving alleged illegal recruitment.

Particularity and General Warrant Concern

  • The Court assessed the Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 and found it effectively functioned as a general warrant because it did not identify with the constitutionally required particularity the persons or things to be seized; it authorized broad seizure of “documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment.”
  • Drawing on precedent cited in th
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms