Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 151 views

    Pasei Vs Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Ortega
    G.R. No. 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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pasei Vs Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Ortega
    151 views1 page
    G.R. No. 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.

    Original Title

    Pasei vs Drilon.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    G.R. No. 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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    151 views1 page

    Pasei Vs Drilon

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Ortega
    G.R. No. 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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    PASEI vs Drilon

    Facts:
    Petitioner, 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 there has been a valid classification in the challenged Department Order No. 1.
    Held: SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification, the Filipino female
    domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves, because of the special risk to which their class
    was exposed. There is no question that Order No.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not
    thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. It is well settled hat equality before the law under
    the constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of
    classification, provided that:
    1. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions
    2. That they are germane to the purpose of the law
    3. They are not confined to existing conditions
    4. They apply equally to al members of the same class
    In the case at bar, the classifications made, rest on substantial distinctions.
    Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the
    right to travel does not impair the right, as the right to travel is subjects among other things, to the
    requirements of public safety as may be provided by law. Deployment ban of female domestic helper is
    a valid exercise of police power. Police power as been defined as the state authority to enact legislation
    that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare.

    You might also like