Case Title: Sto Tomas vs Salac GR Number / Year: 210798/2016

Topic: Illegal Recruitment (RA 8042 as amended by RA 10022); Constitutionality; Police Power
Petitioner: Hon Sto. Tomas (DOLE Secretary) Respondent: Rey Salac et al
et al
Emergency Recit:
Secs. 6, 7 and 9 of RA 8042 are being assailed in this case as there is wanting on its
constitutionality. Sec. 6 for its supposed vagueness in defining illegal recruitment, Sec. 7 for its
supposed sweeping application of heavy penalties regardless of the wrongful acts and Sec. 9
for violating the Rules on venue of criminal actions. SC upheld the constitutionality of all
sections. Sec. 6 actually makes a distinction between licensed and unlicensed recruiters when
they are liable for illegal recruitment. Unlicensed recruiters will be liable for illegal recruitment
whether or not they perform the wrongful acts found in Sec. 6 while licensed recruiters will be
liable for the same only if they commit the wrongful acts enumerated. Sec. 7 is a measure to
punish illegal recruiters as it determines specific acts that are repugnant against the State’s
policy of according full protection to labor thus is a valid exercise of police power. Sec. 9 is an
exception to the general rule as found in the Rules of Court that territorial jurisdiction may be
waived in the interest of justice and for the best interest of the victims of illegal recruitment.
R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of
OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs
seeking to work abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality. SC cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws enacted by the
Congress. Hence, in the absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the statute is
unconstitutional, the SC must uphold its validity.
Doctrine: R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and
deployment of OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by
numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its favor
the presumption of constitutionality. SC cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the
laws enacted by the Congress. Hence, in the absence of a clear and unmistakable case that
the statute is unconstitutional, the SC must uphold its validity.
Facts:
NOTE: (There is another set of facts that was assailing some provisions of law but since a new
law was passed repealing said provisions that said case was rendered moot and academic
thus irrelevant for the discussion herein)
1. The case involves the constitutionality of Secs. 6, 7 and 9 of RA 8042 or the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act sets the Government’s policies on overseas
employment and establishes a higher standard of protection and promotion of the
welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress.
2. PH Assoc of Service Exporters (PASEI) filed a declaratory relief petition, TRO and
Injunction before RTC-Manila to annul aforesaid provisions for being unconstitutional.
3. Provisions of RA 8042 being assailed:
SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any
act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring
workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license
or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree
No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines:
Provided, That such non-license or non-holder, who, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed
so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any
 person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority: (TOO
MANY TO MENTION)
SEC. 7. Penalties. –
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than
twelve (12) years and a fine not less than two hundred thousand pesos
(₱200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred
thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos (₱1,000,000.00)
shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined
herein.
Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person
illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority
SEC. 9. Venue. – A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined
herein shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the
offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of
the commission of the offense: Provided, That the court where the criminal action
is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: Provided,
however, That the aforestated provisions shall also apply to those criminal actions
that have already been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this Act.
4. RTC Ruling:
Sec. 6 is unconstitutional on the ground that the definition of illegal recruitment is
vague as it does not distinguish between licensed and unlicensed recruiters as the
person engaged in acts mentioned therein w/o authority are guilty of the crime
whether they commit said acts or not while those w/ licenses may be liable only if
the commit the enumerated acts
Sec. 7 is unconstitutional on the ground that its sweeping application of the
penalties failed to distinguish the seriousness of the act committed for the
application of the penalty of such violation.
Ex. Mere failure to render a report as mandated by law or obstruction of
inspection by the DOLE are penalized for 6 yrs and 1 day. This could be go
unreasonably higher as life imprisonment if committed by at least 3 person
Sec. 9 is unconstitutional on the ground that by allowing offended parties to file a
criminal case in their place of residence would negate the rule on venue of
criminal cases wherein the crime or any of its elements were committed as venue
is jurisdictional in penal laws.
Issue/s: Whether Secs. 6, 7 and 9 of RA 8042 are unconstitutional
Held: NO
Sec. 6
1. The definition of illegal recruitment is clear and unambiguous as there is an actual
distinction between licensed and unlicensed recruiters. Persons who perform the acts in
this section w/o license are guilty of illegal recruitment whether or not the commit the
acts enumerated therein. While, licensed recruiters who made said acts are also guilty
of the same only if they commit of said acts.
2. In other words, unlicensed recruiters will be liable for illegal recruitment even if they did
not perform the acts mentioned in Sec. 6 while licensed workers will be liable for the
same only if they commit the wrongful acts.
Sec. 7
1. In fixing uniform penalties for each of the enumerated acts under Sec. 6, Congress was
 within its power to determine what individual acts are equally reprehensible consistent
with the State policy of fully protecting labor and deserving of the same penalties. SC
could not question Congress’ wisdom.
2. In fixing such penalties, the law considered the fact that OFWs must work outside PH
thus beyond its immediate protection. The law makes an effort to protect OFWs from
persons within its jurisdiction who are willing to ship them out w/o an assurance that
their contracted principals would treat OFWs fairly and humanely.
3. In People v Ventura, the State under its police power "may prescribe such regulations
as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to
protect them against the consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of
deception and fraud." Police power is "that inherent and plenary power of the State
which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of
society.
Sec. 9
1. There is nothing arbitrary that can be imputed against Congress in fixing alternative
venues as established in the Rules. Rule 110, Sec. 15 in fact places exceptions:
a. Rule 110, Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. — (a) Subject to
existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.
2. Thus said section, as an exception to the rule on venue of criminal action is with that
law’s declared policy of providing criminal justice system that protects and served the
best interest of victims of illegal recruitment.
In summary
1. R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and
deployment of OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses
suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work abroad. The rule is settled that every
statute has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. SC cannot inquire into the
wisdom or expediency of the laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in the
absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional, SC must
uphold its validity.