PASEI vs DRILON

Edit 0 1

PASEI vs DRILON
163 SCRA 380
Facts:Petitioner, Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is engaged
principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female of
overseas employment. It challenges the constitutional validity of Dept. Order
No. 1 (1998) of DOLE entitled Guidelines Governing the Temporary
Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers. It
claims that such order is a discrimination against males and females. The
Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and
females with similar skills, and that it is in violation of the right to travel, it
also being an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. Further, PASEI
invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing for worker participation
in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law. Thereafter the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE
submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving the police
power of the State and informed the court that the respondent have lifted
the deployment ban in some states where there exists bilateral agreement
with the Philippines and existing mechanism providing for sufficient
safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers.
Issue:Whether or not there has been a valid classification in the challenged
Department Order No. 1.
Decision:SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid
classification, the Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class
by themselves, because of the special risk to which their class was exposed.
There is no question that Order No.1 applies only to female contract workers
but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. It is
well settled hat equality before the law under the constitution does not
import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of
classification, provided that:
1. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions
2. That they are germane to the purpose of the law
3. They are not confined to existing conditions
4. They apply equally to al members of the same class
In the case at bar, the classifications made, rest on substantial distinctions.
Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel. The consequence of

the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right, as
the right to travel is subjects among other things, to the requirements of
public safety as may be provided by law. Deployment ban of female
domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power. Police power as been
defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare. Neither is
there merit in the contention that Department Order No. 1 constitutes an
invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with
rule making powers.