Cheyzer C. C. J.

Mendoza
Block-B

Labor Law 1
Atty. Miles Arroyo

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc., petitioner

vs.
Hon. Franklin Drilon as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D.
ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration, respondents.
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988
Facts: Petitioner, a firm engaged with the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and
female overseas, challenged the constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1suspending the deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers. The
grounds for this petition for certiorari and prohibition were : it was discriminatory
against female helpers or similar skills; it was violative of the right to travel; it was
an invalid exercise of lawmaking power since police power being legislative and not
executive in character.
In its supplement, they also invoked Sec. 3, Art. XIII of the Constitution (worker
participation in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits). Department Order No. 1 was passed without prior consultation. It was also
to be in violation of the charters non-impairment clause.
Solicitor General, on behalf of respondents invokes police power and informed the
court that the department lifted the deployment ban in some states.
Issue: Whether the temporary deployment ban against Filipino domestic and
household workers to certain places issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment for the purpose of protecting them is violative of the Constitution for
discriminative of sexes, other types of employment and certain places; violative of
the right to travel; invalid exercise of police power; violative of policy and decisionmaking process because it was passed without prior consultation; and violative of
non-impairment clause.
Held: The temporary deployment ban is not discriminative of sexes because the
classification rests on substantial distinction. The court is aware that female
domestic servants abroad suffer physical and personal abuse while there is no
evidence that male workers suffer the same fate. It is also not discriminatory on
other types of employment and on banned places since there were no reported
incidents that other types of worker suffer such abuses, and no reported incidents in
other places.
It does not impair the right to travel because it is subject to the requirements of
public safety.
It is a valid exercise of police power because although police power is in the domain
of the legislature, it can be lawfully delegated. And the Labor Code vested the
Department of Labor and Employment with the rulemaking power.

It is not unconstitutional on the ground that it was passed without prior consultation
and therefore violative of the of worker participation because the right granted by
this provision is subject to the demands and necessities of the States power of
regulation.
The petition was dismissed.