Philippine Association of Service Exporter, Inc.

vs.
Hon. Franklin M. Drilon
GR No. 81958
June 30, 1988

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.

RULING:
Supreme Court 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 menand 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. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. 1
constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE
with rule making powers.