Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    PASEI vs. Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Wilbert Chong
    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1 of 1988, which temporarily suspended the deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers, specifically female workers. The Supreme Court ruled the order was constitutional and within the police power of the state. It did not discriminate or violate equal protection because the classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions given the exploitation and abuse many experienced abroad. The measure also furthered its purpose of protecting overseas Filipino workers and applied equally to all members of the affected class. While it impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions like those in the challenged order.

    Copyright:

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

    PASEI vs. Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Wilbert Chong
    43 views2 pages
    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1 of 1988, which temporarily suspended the deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers, specifically female workers. The Supreme Court ruled the order was constitutional and within the police power of the state. It did not discriminate or violate equal protection because the classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions given the exploitation and abuse many experienced abroad. The measure also furthered its purpose of protecting overseas Filipino workers and applied equally to all members of the affected class. While it impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions like those in the challenged order.

    Original Description:

    PASEI-vs.-Drilon

    Original Title

    PASEI-vs.-Drilon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1 of 1988, which temporarily suspended the deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers, specifically female workers. The Supreme Court ruled the order was constitutional and within the police power of the state. It did not discriminate or violate equal protection because the classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions given the exploitation and abuse many experienced abroad. The measure also furthered its purpose of protecting overseas Filipino workers and applied equally to all members of the affected class. While it impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions like those in the challenged order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    PASEI vs. Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Wilbert Chong
    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1 of 1988, which temporarily suspended the deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers, specifically female workers. The Supreme Court ruled the order was constitutional and within the police power of the state. It did not discriminate or violate equal protection because the classification of female workers was based on substantial distinctions given the exploitation and abuse many experienced abroad. The measure also furthered its purpose of protecting overseas Filipino workers and applied equally to all members of the affected class. While it impacted the right to travel, that right is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions like those in the challenged order.

    Copyright:

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

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

    DRILON as
    Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the
    Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
    G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988
    FACTS:
    The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), a firm "engaged
    principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas
    placement," challenges the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the
    Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE
    TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD
    WORKERS." Specifically, the measure is assailed for "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.
    In submitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines," the Solicitor General invokes
    the police power of the Philippine State. It is admitted that Department Order No. 1 is in the
    nature of a police power measure. The concept of police power has been defined as the "state
    authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to
    promote the general welfare." It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights.
    Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual
    rights and liberties "Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act
    according to one's will." It is subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of
    the greater number.

    ISSUE:
    WON Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment is
    unconstitutional?

    RULING:
    No, the SC ruled that Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988 in the character of “guidelines
    governing the temporary suspension of deployment of Filipino domestic and household
    workers” is constitutional.

    Equal Protection
    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. As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the
    unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad, especially domestic servants,
    amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not a few cases, physical and personal
    abuse. The sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina workers, even rape and
    various forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies of returning workers, are compelling
    motives for urgent Government action. As precisely the caretaker of Constitutional rights, the
    Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation. In fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains
    the Government's efforts.
    There is likewise no doubt that such a classification is germane to the purpose behind
    the measure. Unquestionably, it is the avowed objective of Department Order No. 1 to
    "enhance the protection for Filipino female overseas workers" 17 this Court has no quarrel that
    in the midst of the terrible mistreatment Filipina workers have suffered abroad, a ban on
    deployment will be for their own good and welfare.
    The Order does not narrowly apply to existing conditions. Rather, it is intended to
    apply indefinitely so long as those conditions exist. Should the authorities arrive at a means
    impressed with a greater degree of permanency, the ban shall be lifted. As a stop-gap measure,
    it is possessed of a necessary malleability, depending on the circumstances of each case.
    The Court finds the impugned guidelines to be applicable to all female domestic
    overseas workers. That it does not apply to "all Filipina workers" is not an argument for
    unconstitutionality. Had the ban been given universal applicability, then it would have been
    unreasonable and arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of them are similarly circumstanced.
    What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or group of persons within
    an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage
    to another person or group of persons.

    Right to travel
    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,"
    "as may be provided by law." 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.

    You might also like