JMM Promotions, Inc. and Kary Int'l, Inc. vs.

Court of Appeals

Facts:
Following the death of Maricris Sioson, President Cory Aquino ordered a total ban
against the deployment of performing artists to Japan and other foreign destinations.
The DOLE Secretary issued a Department Order 28 creating the Entertainment Industry
Advisory Council (EIAC), tasked on issuing guidelines on the training, testing
certification and deployment of performing artists abroad. DOLE Sec. Again issued a
Department Order 3 establishing procedures and requirements for screening performing
artists, those who passed were to be issued an Artist's Record Book (ARB), a pre-
requisite to process employment contract in the POEA. In a civil case, the Federation of
Entertainment Talent Managers of the Phils. (FETMOP) filed a class suit questioning the
DOLE orders violating their constitutional right to travel, abridged existing contracts for
employment, depriving individual artists of their licenses without due process and that
issuance of the ARB was discriminatory and illegal and in gross violation of their
constitutional right to life, liberty and property. JMM, Inc. files a motion for intervention in
said civil case with prayer for preliminary injunction, the trial court denied and dismiss
the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's and dismissed the case.
Appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the DOLE orders was not a valid exercise of police power and violates
their constitutional rights?

Held:
No, the DOLE orders constitutes a valid exercise of police power. The ARB requirement
and questioned DOLE orders was a valid exercise of police power. The State alarmed
by reports that Filipina performing artists ended up as prostitutes abroad, and following
death, instituted measures of deploying only those who met standards which would
qualify them as legitimate performing artists. The orders are aimed at enhancing the
safety and security of entertainers and artists bound for Japan. Under the Constitution,
the State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare. Profession is a property right. DOLE orders are not
unreasonable and does not deprive the performing artists their property right under the
due process. As long as there is a reasonable connection between the purpose and the
means employed. No rights are violated.
 SSS Employee's Association (SSSEA) vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
The SSSEA officers and members staged an illegal strike for failure of the SSS

Issue:
Whether or not the DOLE orders was not a valid exercise of police power and violates
their constitutional rights?

Held:
No, the DOLE orders constitutes a valid exercise of police power. The ARB requirement
and questioned DOLE orders was a valid exercise of police power. The State alarmed
by reports that Filipina performing artists ended up as prostitutes abroad, and following
death, instituted measures of deploying only those who met standards which would
qualify them as legitimate performing artists. The orders are aimed at enhancing the
safety and security of entertainers and artists bound for Japan. Under the Constitution,
the State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare. Profession is a property right. DOLE orders are not
unreasonable and does not deprive the performing artists their property right under the
due process. As long as there is a reasonable connection between the purpose and the
means employed. No rights are violated.
 Oposa vs. Factoran (GR. 101083, July 30, 1993)

Obligations of the State

Facts:
Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI) together with the minors Juan Antonio Oposa
et. al. and their parents filed a class suit against the DENR Secretary, Fulgencio
Factoran, Jr. They claimed that they have the right to the full benefit, use and enjoyment
of the natural resources of the country’s rainforests and prayed the cancelation of all
existing timber license agreements in the country granted by Factoran, Jr. as it was
done with grave abuse of discretion, violating their right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.

Issue:
Whether or not the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a substantive right?

Held:
Yes. it is a substantive right. It focuses on a fundamental legal and human right to a
balanced and healthful ecology which Oposa et. al. dramatically associate with the twin
concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "intergenerational justice." Every
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the
full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors'
assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations
to come. Under the 1987 Constitution: Sec. 15. Art. II under the 1987 Constitution: “The
State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.” Sec. 16. Art. II: “The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.”