Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Pasei Vs Drilon Case Digest PDF

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Canlas
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1, which placed restrictions on the overseas deployment of female workers. The petitioner claimed the order discriminated against males and violated the right to travel, but the Court found the order's classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions related to the purpose of protecting labor. While the order impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and can be subject to requirements of public safety. The Court also determined the order was a valid implementation of the Labor Code within the rule-making authority delegated to the Department of Labor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pasei Vs Drilon Case Digest PDF

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Canlas
    2K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1, which placed restrictions on the overseas deployment of female workers. The petitioner claimed the order discriminated against males and violated the right to travel, but the Court found the order's classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions related to the purpose of protecting labor. While the order impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and can be subject to requirements of public safety. The Court also determined the order was a valid implementation of the Labor Code within the rule-making authority delegated to the Department of Labor.

    Original Title

    pasei vs drilon case digest.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1, which placed restrictions on the overseas deployment of female workers. The petitioner claimed the order discriminated against males and violated the right to travel, but the Court found the order's classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions related to the purpose of protecting labor. While the order impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and can be subject to requirements of public safety. The Court also determined the order was a valid implementation of the Labor Code within the rule-making authority delegated to the Department of Labor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Pasei Vs Drilon Case Digest PDF

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Canlas
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1, which placed restrictions on the overseas deployment of female workers. The petitioner claimed the order discriminated against males and violated the right to travel, but the Court found the order's classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions related to the purpose of protecting labor. While the order impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and can be subject to requirements of public safety. The Court also determined the order was a valid implementation of the Labor Code within the rule-making authority delegated to the Department of Labor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. vs. HON. FRANKLIN M.

    DRILON

    G.R. No. 81958 (June 30, 1988)

    FACTS:

    Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), a firm "engaged principally in the
    recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement," filed a petition with
    the court challenging the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of
    the Department of Labor and Employment. They claimed that there is a "discrimination against
    males or females;" that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and
    females with similar skills;" and that it is violative of the right to travel. They also claimed that the
    it is an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not
    executive, in character.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the Department Order is unconstitutional

    LAW:

    Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution - The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
    organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities
    for all.

    COURT HISTORY:

    The petition for certiorari and prohibition was originally filed with the Supreme Court

    RULING:

    No. As a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed validity. In the absence of clear and convincing
    evidence to the contrary, the presumption logically stands. The petitioner has shown no satisfactory
    reason why the contested measure should be nullified. There is no question that Department Order
    No. 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not thereby make an undue
    discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law" under the
    Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of
    classifications, provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are
    germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing conditions; and (4) they
    apply equally to all members of the same class. The Court is satisfied that the classification made-
    the preference for female workers — rests on substantial distinctions. It is incorrect to say that
    Department Order No. 1 prescribes a total ban on overseas deployment. From scattered provisions
    of the Order, it is evident that such a total ban has not been contemplated.

    The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. The right
    to travel is subject, among other things, to the requirements of "public safety." Department Order No.
    1 is a valid implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to "afford protection to
    labor," pursuant to the respondent Department of Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the
    Labor Code. The petitioner assumes that it is unreasonable simply because of its impact on the
    right to travel, but as we have stated, the right itself is not absolute. The disputed Order is a valid
    qualification thereto. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. 1 constitutes
    an invalid exercise of legislative power. It is true that police power is the domain of the legislature,
    but it does not mean that such an authority may not be lawfully delegated.

    You might also like