G.R. No. 102940 November 6, 1992
Adelpha Fernandez, Marissa Domingo, Eunice Ofrecia, Roselyn Mendoza, Arlene Caballero, Almira Miranda, and Mary Christine Valenton, petitioners, vs. Hon. Ruben Torres, Secretary of Labor and Employment and Jose Sarmiento, Administrator, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, who are qualified performing artists aged eighteen to twenty-two years, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to restrain the Secretary of Labor and the POEA Administrator from enforcing Item No. 1 of DOLE Circular No. 01-91. The Circular prescribed additional requirements for deploying performing artists abroad, including that they must have a one-year track record of legitimate performance in the Philippines and, in no case, be below 23 years old, though the Secretary could grant exemptions for justifiable reasons. The Circular was promulgated in response to documented reports of exploitative conditions, harassment, and abuse suffered by Filipino entertainers overseas. Petitioners challenged the Circular as violative of the equal protection and due process clauses and as an arbitrary infringement on the right to labor, claiming it was promulgated without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the petition presents a justiciable controversy ripe for judicial review, given that petitioners had not first applied for an exemption from the age requirement under the challenged Circular.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of a justiciable controversy. The Court held that the petitioners failed to meet the first requirement for judicial inquiry into a constitutional issue: the existence of an actual case or controversy. The challenged Circular did not establish an absolute prohibition, as it expressly allowed the Secretary of Labor to grant exemptions. Petitioners did not allege that they had applied for such an exemption and were arbitrarily denied, nor did they show that the public respondents threatened to deny all applications. The Court applied the presumptions of constitutionality of administrative orders and the regular performance of official duty. Engaging in judicial review without prior administrative action would be akin to rendering an advisory opinion on a hypothetical case, which is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. The failure to show an actual controversy rendered consideration of the other requisites for constitutional litigation unnecessary.