G.R. No. L-81958 June 30, 1988
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), an entity engaged in the recruitment of overseas Filipino workers, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, issued by the Secretary of Labor. The Order provided guidelines for the temporary suspension of deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers. PASEI assailed the measure on several grounds: that it discriminated on the basis of sex by applying only to female domestic helpers; that it violated the constitutional right to travel; that it constituted an invalid exercise of police power, which is legislative in character; that it was enacted without prior consultation with workers, contravening constitutional provisions on worker participation; and that it impaired contractual obligations and caused grave injury to its members’ businesses.
The respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, defended the Order as a valid exercise of the state’s police power. They informed the Court that the deployment ban had already been partially lifted in several countries by the time of the comment. The core issue presented was whether the executive department, through the Department of Labor, could validly issue such an order under its police power authority.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether Department Order No. 1 is a valid and constitutional exercise of the state’s police power.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Department Order No. 1. The Court clarified that police power is an inherent and plenary attribute of state sovereignty, not solely a legislative prerogative. It is defined as the state’s authority to enact measures that may restrain liberty or property to promote the general welfare. While the Bill of Rights guarantees individual liberties, these are not absolute and are subject to overriding demands of public interest and communal welfare. The Court emphasized that police power must be exercised reasonably and for public good, not for private interests.
Applying these principles, the Court found the gender-based classification in the Order to be valid. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection does not require perfect identity of rights but permits reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions germane to the law’s purpose. The Court took judicial notice of the documented and widespread exploitation, abuse, and deplorable conditions suffered specifically by Filipina domestic workers overseas, which constituted a substantial distinction justifying protective measures for females. No similar evidentiary basis existed for male workers. The Order was a reasonable response to a specific and grave societal problem.
The Court also ruled that the right to travel could be restricted in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as provided by law. The Labor Code expressly grants the government the power to regulate overseas employment, including the imposition of bans. The alleged non-consultation with workers did not invalidate the Order, as the constitutional provision on worker participation requires implementation by law. Finally, the non-impairment clause must yield to the legitimate exercise of police power aimed at protecting the welfare of citizens. The government’s interest in securing decent living conditions for overseas workers outweighs purely business concerns. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the challenged Order.