PASEI v. Drilon
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988, Sarmiento, J.
(Labor Standards, Police Power defined)
FACTS:
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 D.O. No. 1 of DOLE is constitutional as it is an exercise of police power.
RULING:
The concept of police power is well-established inthis jurisdiction. It 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
may be said to be that inherent or plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things harmful to the
comfort, safety and welfare of the society.
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 make an undue
discrimination between the sexes. Nevertheless, the Court is well awareof the unhappy plight that befallen our
female labor force abroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not a
few cases, physical and personal abuse.
As caretaker of constitutional rights, the Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation. In
fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the Governments efforts.