JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT INC.

VS COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 120095
August 5, 1996
Substantive Due Process: OFW Deployment Ban
FACTS:
The controversial death of Maricris Sioson urged President Cory Aquino to order a total
ban against the deployment of performing artists to Japan and other foreign countries. This was
eventually rescinded when leaders of the overseas employment industry ensured the full support
for a program that would cure the system of deployment. As such, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment created the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC) whose job was to
issue guidelines on the training, testing certificates and deployment of performing artists abroad.
In line with this, the EIAC issued Department Order No. 3.
On January 27, 1995, the Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the Philippines
(FETMOP) filed a class suit assailing Department Order No. 3 which establishes various
procedures and requirements for screening performing artists under a new system of training,
testing, certification and deployment of the former and other related issuance, principally
contending that the said orders: 1.) violated the constitutional right to travel; 2.) abridged existing
contracts for employment; and 3.) deprived individual artists of their licenses without due
process of law. FETMOP also averred that the issuance of the Artist Record Book (ARB) was
discriminatory and illegal and in gross violation of the constitutional right to life liberty and
property. FETMOP prayed for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against the
orders.
JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. (JMM) and Kary International, Inc. (Kary) filed a
motion for intervention in the civil case which was granted by the trial court. However, on
February 21, 1995, the trial court issued an order denying petitioner's prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction and dismissed the compliant. An appeal was made to the trial court
regarding its decision but it was also however, dismissed. As a consequences, ARB requirement
was issued. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision and concluded that the said
issuance constituted a valid exercise of Police Power.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the said issuance of ARB is a valid exercise of Police Power.

HELD:
1. Yes.
The ARB requirement and questioned Department Order related to its issuance were
issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to a valid exercise of Police Power by the State. The
court said that proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been
upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of police power by the state particularly when
their conduct affects either the execution of a legitimate governmental functions, the preservation

Prepared by: Katrina S. Diploma

of the State, the public health and welfare and public morals. Police power concerns government
enactments which interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general
welfare or the common good. Because the Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, the
burden falls upon the petitioners to prove that the ARB requirement does not enhance the public
welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. The welfare of Filipino performing artists,
particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of the said order to which the petitioners
could not counter with evidence.
The requirement of passing rigid written and practical exams before they are deemed fit
to practice their trade does not tantamount to an unwarranted deprivation of a property right
under the due process clause. So long as professionals and other workers meet reasonable
regulatory standards no such deprivation exists.

Prepared by: Katrina S. Diploma