G.R. No. 81510 March 14, 1990
HORTENCIA SALAZAR, petitioner, vs. HON. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in his capacity as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, and FERDIE MARQUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Rosalie Tesoro filed a sworn complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against petitioner Hortencia Salazar for illegal recruitment. Tesoro alleged that Salazar, operating without a license, took her PECC card promising overseas employment but failed to deploy her. Based on this complaint and a verification that Salazar had no license, POEA Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 on November 3, 1987. The order directed the closure of Salazar’s alleged recruitment agency and the seizure of documents and paraphernalia used in illegal recruitment.
On January 26, 1988, a POEA team implemented the order at Salazar’s residence in Mandaluyong, which housed the “Hannalie Dance Studio.” Assisted by policemen, the team entered, served the order, and confiscated assorted costumes. Salazar, through counsel, demanded the return of the seized properties, arguing the seizure violated constitutional rights to due process and against unreasonable searches. She subsequently filed a petition for prohibition, challenging the constitutionality of the POEA’s power to issue such closure and seizure orders.

ISSUE

May the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court declared Article 38(c) of the Labor Code unconstitutional. The legal logic is anchored on a strict interpretation of the 1987 Constitution , specifically Article III, Section 2, which states that “no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge.” The Court emphasized that this provision is a direct and deliberate reversal of the 1973 Constitution, which had allowed exceptions by law. The 1987 text is categorical and leaves no room for statutory exceptions; the power to issue warrants is exclusively judicial.
The respondents’ argument, that the administrative order was a valid exercise of police power under the Labor Code to curb illegal recruitment as economic sabotage, was rejected. The Court distinguished this from the recognized exception in deportation cases, where the Executive may order the arrest of aliens under a final deportation order, as this is considered a continuation of the exclusion power and not a criminal proceeding. In contrast, the actions against Salazar involved the seizure of property from a private residence based on an administrative determination, which squarely falls under the constitutional requirement for a judicial warrant. The implementation, therefore, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, ordered the return of all seized materials, and voided the challenged provision.