Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 120095 August 5, 1996
JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., an !AR" INTERNATIONA#,
INC., petitioner,
vs.
$ON. COURT O% APPEA#S, $ON. MA. NIE&ES CON%ESSOR, t'(n S()*(ta*+ o,
t'( D(-a*t.(nt o, #a/o* an E.-0o+.(nt, $ON. JOSE 1RI##ANTES, 2n '2s
)a-a)2t+ as a)t2ng S()*(ta*+ o, t'( D(-a*t.(nt o, #a/o* an E.-0o+.(nt an
$ON. %E#ICISIMO JOSON, 2n '2s )a-a)2t+ as A.2n2st*ato* o, t'( P'202--2n(
O3(*s(as E.-0o+.(nt A.2n2st*at2on, respondents.

!APUNAN, J.:p
The liits of !overnent re!ulation under the State"s police po#er are once a!ain at
the vorte$ of the instant controvers%. &ssailed is the !overnent"s po#er to control
deplo%ent of feale entertainers to 'apan b% re(uirin! an &rtist Record )oo* +&R),
as a precondition to the processin! b% the PO-& of an% contract for overseas
eplo%ent. )% contendin! that the ri!ht to overseas eplo%ent is a propert% ri!ht
#ithin the eanin! of the .onstitution, petitioners vi!orousl% aver that deprivation
thereof alle!edl% throu!h the onerous re(uireent of an &R) violates the due
process clause and constitutes an invalid e$ercise of the police po#er.
The factual antecedents are undisputed.
Follo#in! the uch/publici0ed death of Maricris Sioson in 1221, forer President
.ora0on .. &(uino ordered a total ban a!ainst the deplo%ent of perforin! artists
to 'apan and other forei!n destinations. The ban #as, ho#ever, rescinded after
leaders of the overseas eplo%ent industr% proised to e$tend full support for a
pro!ra aied at reovin! *in*s in the s%ste of deplo%ent. In its place, the
!overnent, throu!h the Secretar% of 3abor and -plo%ent, subse(uentl% issued
Departent Order No. 45, creatin! the -ntertainent Industr% &dvisor% .ouncil
+-I&.,, #hich #as tas*ed #ith issuin! !uidelines on the trainin!, testin! certification
and deplo%ent of perforin! artists abroad.
Pursuant to the -I&."s recoendations,
1
the Secretar% of 3abor, on 'anuar% 6,
1227, issued Departent Order No. 8 establishin! various procedures and
re(uireents for screenin! perforin! artists under a ne# s%ste of trainin!, testin!,
certification and deplo%ent of the forer. Perforin! artists successfull% hurdlin!
the test, trainin! and certification re(uireent #ere to be issued an &rtist"s Record
)oo* +&R),, a necessar% prere(uisite to processin! of an% contract of eplo%ent
b% the PO-&. 9pon re(uest of the industr%, ipleentation of the process, ori!inall%
scheduled for &pril 1, 1227, #as oved to October 1, 1227.
Thereafter, the Departent of 3abor, follo#in! the -I&."s recoendation, issued a
series of orders fine/tunin! and ipleentin! the ne# s%ste. Proinent aon!
these orders #ere the follo#in! issuances:
1. Departent Order No. 8/&, providin! for additional !uidelines on the trainin!,
testin!, certification and deplo%ent of perforin! artists.
4. Departent Order No. 8/), pertainin! to the &rtist Record )oo* +&R),
re(uireent, #hich could be processed onl% after the artist could sho# proof of
acadeic and s*ills trainin! and has passed the re(uired tests.
8. Departent Order No. 8/-, providin! the iniu salar% a perforin! artist ou!ht
to received +not less than 9S;6<<.<< for those bound for 'apan, and the authori0ed
deductions therefro.
7. Departent Order No. 8/F, providin! for the !uidelines on the issuance and use of
the &R) b% returnin! perforin! artists #ho, unli*e ne# artists, shall onl% under!o a
Special Orientation Pro!ra +shorter than the basic pro!ra, althou!h the% ust
pass the acadeic test.
In .ivil .ase No. 2=/>4>=<, the Federation of -ntertainent Talent Mana!ers of the
Philippines +F-TMOP,, on 'anuar% 4>, 122= filed a class suit assailin! these
departent orders, principall% contendin! that said orders 1, violated the
constitutional ri!ht to travel? 4, abrid!ed e$istin! contracts for eplo%ent? and 8,
deprived individual artists of their licenses #ithout due process of la#. F-TMOP,
li*e#ise, averred that the issuance of the &rtist Record )oo* +&R), #as
discriinator% and ille!al and @in !ross violation of the constitutional ri!ht... to life
libert% and propert%.@ Said Federation conse(uentl% pra%ed for the issuance of a #rit
of preliinar% inAunction a!ainst the aforestated orders.
On Februar% 4, 1224, 'MM Prootion and Mana!eent, Inc. Bar% International, Inc.,
herein petitioners, filed a Motion for Intervention in said civil case, #hich #as !ranted
b% the trial court in an Order dated 1= Februar%, 122=.
Co#ever, on Februar% 41, 122=, the trial court issued an Order den%in! petitioners"
pra%ed for a #rit of preliinar% inAunction and disissed the coplaint.
1
On appeal fro the trial court"s Order, respondent court, in .& D.R. SP No. 86>18
disissed the sae. Tracin! the circustances #hich led to the issuance of the
&R) re(uireent and the assailed Departent Order, respondent court concluded
that the issuance constituted a valid e$ercise b% the state of the police po#er.
Ee a!ree.
The latin a$i salus populi est surprema lex ebodies the character of the entire
spectru of public la#s aied at prootin! the !eneral #elfare of the people under
the State"s police po#er. &s an inherent attribute of soverei!nt% #hich virtuall%
@e$tends to all public needs,@
2
this @least liitable@
4
of !overnental po#ers !rants
a #ide panopl% of instruents throu!h #hich the state, as parens patriae !ives
effect to a host of its re!ulator% po#ers.
Describin! the nature and scope of the police po#er, 'ustice Malcol, in the earl%
case of Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
5
#rote:
@The police po#er of the State,@ one court has said... is a po#er coe$tensive #ith
self/protection, and is not inaptl% tered @the la# of overrulin! necessit%.@ It a% be
said to be that inherent and plenar% po#er in the state #hich enables it to prohibit all
thin!s hurtful to the cofort, safet% and #elfare of societ%.@ .arried on#ard b% the
current of le!islature, the Audiciar% rarel% attepts to da the onrushin! po#er of
le!islative discretion, provided the purposes of the la# do not !o be%ond the !reat
principles that ean securit% for the public #elfare or do not arbitraril% interfere #ith
the ri!ht of the individual.
5
Thus, police po#er concerns !overnent enactents #hich precisel% interfere #ith
personal libert% or propert% in order to proote the !eneral #elfare or the coon
!ood. &s the assailed Departent Order enAo%s a presued validit%, it follo#s that
the burden rests upon petitioners to deonstrate that the said order, particularl%, its
&R) re(uireent, does not enhance the public #elfare or #as e$ercised arbitraril%
or unreasonabl%.
& thorou!h revie# of the facts and circustances leadin! to the issuance of the
assailed orders copels us to rule that the &rtist Record )oo* re(uireent and the
(uestioned Departent Order related to its issuance #ere issued b% the Secretar%
of 3abor pursuant to a valid e$ercise of the police po#er.
In 1257, the Philippines eer!ed as the lar!est labor sendin! countr% in
&sia d#arfin! the labor e$port of countries #ith aoth populations such
as India and .hina. &ccordin! to the National Statistics Office,
thisdiaspora #as au!ented annuall% b% over 7=<,<<< docuented and
clandestine or ille!al +undocuented, #or*ers #ho left the countr% for
various destinations abroad, lured b% hi!her salaries, better #or*
opportunities and soeties better livin! conditions.
Of the hundreds of thousands of #or*ers #ho left the countr% for !reener
pastures in the last fe# %ears, #oen coposed sli!htl% close to half of
those deplo%ed, constitutin! 7>F bet#een 125>/1221, e$ceedin! this
proportion +=5F, b% the end of 1221,
6
the %ear forer President &(uino
instituted the ban on deplo%ent of perforin! artists to 'apan and other
countries as a result of the !ruesoe death of Filipino entertainer Maricris
Sioson.
It #as durin! the sae period that this .ourt too* Audicial notice not onl% of
the trend, but also of the fact that ost of our #oen, a lar!e nuber
eplo%ed as doestic helpers and entertainers, #or*ed under e$ploitative
conditions @ar*ed b% ph%sical and personal abuse.@
6
-ven then, #e noted
that @GtHhe sordid tales of altreatent suffered b% i!rant Filipina #or*ers,
even rape and various fors of torture, confired b% testionies of
returnin! #or*ers@ copelled @ur!ent !overnent action.@
7
Pursuant to the alarin! nuber of reports that a si!nificant nuber of
Filipina perforin! artists ended up as prostitutes abroad +an% of #ho
#ere beaten, dru!!ed and forced into prostitution,, and follo#in! the deaths
of nuber of these #oen, the !overnent be!an institutin! easures
aied at deplo%in! onl% those individuals #ho et set standards #hich
#ould (ualif% the as le!itiate perforin! artists. In spite of these
easures, ho#ever, a nuber of our countr%en have nonetheless fallen
victi to unscrupulous recruiters, endin! up as virtual slaves controlled b%
forei!n crie s%ndicates and forced into Aobs other than those indicated in
their eplo%ent contracts. Eorse, soe of our #oen have been forced
into prostitution.
Thus, after a nuber of inade(uate and failed accreditation schees, the
Secretar% of 3abor issued on &u!ust 16, 1228, D.O. No. 45, establishin! the
-ntertainent Industr% &dvisor% .ouncil +-I&.,, the polic% advisor% bod% of
DO3- on entertainent industr% atters.
9
&ctin! on the recoendations
of the said bod%, the Secretar% of 3abor, on 'anuar% 6, 1227, issued the
assailed orders. These orders ebodied -I&."s Resolution No. 1, #hich
called for !uidelines on screenin!, testin! and accreditin! perforin!
overseas Filipino artists. Si!nificantl%, as the respondent court noted,
petitioners #ere dul% represented in the -I&.,
10
#hich !ave the
recoendations on #hich the &R) and other re(uireents #ere based.
.learl%, the #elfare of Filipino perforin! artists, particularl% the #oen #as
paraount in the issuance of Departent Order No. 8. Short of a total and
absolute ban a!ainst the deplo%ent of perforin! artists to @hi!h ris*@
destinations, a easure #hich #ould onl% drive recruitent further
under!round, the ne# schee at the ver% least rationali0es the ethod of
screenin! perforin! artists b% re(uirin! reasonable educational and artistic
s*ills fro the and liits deplo%ent to onl% those individuals ade(uatel%
prepared for the unpredictable deands of eplo%ent as artists abroad. It
2
cannot be !ainsaid that this schee at least lessens the roo for
e$ploitation b% unscrupulous individuals and a!encies.
Moreover, here or abroad, selection of perforin! artists is usuall%
accoplished b% auditions, #here those deeed unfit are usuall% #eeded
out throu!h a process #hich is inherentl% subAective and vulnerable to bias
and differences in taste. The &R) re(uireent !oes one step further,
ho#ever, atteptin! to inii0e the subAectivit% of the process b% definin!
the iniu s*ills re(uired fro entertainers and perforin! artists. &s the
Solicitor Deneral observed, this should be easil% et b% e$perienced artists
possessin! erel% basic s*ills. The test are aied at se!re!atin! real artists
or perforers fro those passin! theselves off as such, ea!er to accept
an% available Aob and therefore e$posin! theselves to possible
e$ploitation.
&s to the other provisions of Departent Order No. 8 (uestioned b%
petitioners, #e see nothin! #ron! #ith the re(uireents for docuent and
boo*in! confiration +D.O. 8/.,, a iniu salar% scale +D.O. 8/-,, or the
re(uireent for re!istration of returnin! perforers. The re(uireent for a
venue certificate or other docuents evidencin! the place and nature or
#or* allo#s the !overnent closer onitorin! of forei!n eplo%ers and
helps *eep our entertainers a#a% fro prostitution fronts and other
#or*sites associated #ith unsavor%, ioral, ille!al or e$ploitative
practices. Parentheticall%, none of these issuances appear to us, b% an%
stretch of the ia!ination, even reotel% unreasonable or arbitrar%. The%
address a felt need of accordin! !reater protection for an oft/e$ploited
se!ent of our O.E"s. The% respond to the industr%"s deand for clearer
and ore practicable rules and !uidelines. Man% of these provisions #ere
fleshed out follo#in! recoendations b%, and after consultations #ith, the
affected sectors and non/!overnent or!ani0ations. On the #hole, the% are
aied at enhancin! the safet% and securit% of entertainers and artists bound
for 'apan and other destinations, #ithout stiflin! the industr%"s concerns for
e$pansion and !ro#th.
In an% event, apart fro the State"s police po#er, the .onstitution itself
andates !overnent to e$tend the fullest protection to our overseas
#or*ers. The basic constitutional stateent on labor, ebodied in Section
15 of &rticle II of the .onstitution provides:
Sec. 15. The State affirs labor as a priar% social econoic
force. It shall protect the ri!hts of #or*ers and proote their
#elfare.
More ephaticall%, the social Austice provisions on labor of the 125>
.onstitution in its first para!raph states:
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
or!ani0ed and unor!ani0ed and proote full eplo%ent and
e(ualit% of eplo%ent opportunities for all.
Obviousl%, protection to labor does not indicate prootion of eplo%ent
alone. 9nder the #elfare and social Austice provisions of the .onstitution,
the prootion of full eplo%ent, #hile desirable, cannot ta*e a bac*seat to
the !overnent"s constitutional dut% to provide echaniss for the
protection of our #or*force, local or overseas. &s this .ourt e$plained in
Philippine Association of Service Exporters (PASEI) v. Drilon,
11
in reference
to the recurrin! probles faced b% our overseas #or*ers:
Ehat concerns the .onstitution ore paraountl% is that such an
eplo%ent be above all, decent, Aust, and huane. It is bad
enou!h that the countr% has to send its sons and dau!hters to
stran!e lands because it cannot satisf% their eplo%ent needs at
hoe. 9nder these circustances, the Dovernent is dut%/
ade(uate protection, personall% and econoicall%, #hile a#a% fro
hoe.
Ee no# !o to petitioners" assertion that the police po#er cannot,
nevertheless, abrid!e the ri!ht of our perforin! #or*ers to return to #or*
abroad after havin! earlier (ualified under the old process, because, havin!
previousl% been accredited, their accreditation becae a @propert% ri!ht,@
protected b% the due process clause. Ee find this contention untenable.
& profession, trade of callin! is a propert% ri!ht #ithin the eanin! of our
constitutional !uarantees. One cannot be deprived of the ri!ht to #or* and
ri!ht to a*e a livin! because these ri!hts are propert% ri!hts, the arbitrar%
and un#arranted deprivation of #hich norall% constitutes an actionable
#ron!.
12
Nevertheless, no ri!ht is absolute, and the proper re!ulation of a profession,
callin!, business or trade has al#a%s been upheld as a le!itiate subAect of
a valid e$ercise of the police po#er b% the state particularl% #hen their
conduct affects either the e$ecution of le!itiate !overnental functions,
the preservation of the State, the public health and #elfare and public
orals. &ccordin! to the a$i, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, it ust
of course be #ithin the le!itiate ran!e of le!islative action to define the
ode and anner in #hich ever% one a% so use of his o#n propert% so as
not to pose inAur% to hiself or others.
14
In an% case, #here the libert% curtailed affects at ost the ri!hts of propert%,
the perissible scope of re!ulator% easures is certainl% uch
#ider.
15
To pretend that licensin! or accreditation re(uireents violates the
due process clause is to i!nore the settled practice, under the antle of the
3
police po#er, of re!ulatin! entr% to the practice of various trades or
professions. Professionals leavin! for abroad are re(uired to pass ri!id
#ritten and practical e$as before the% are deeed fit to practice their
trade. Seaen are re(uired to ta*e tests deterinin! their seaanship.
3ocall%, the Professional Re!ulation .oission has be!an to re(uire
previousl% licensed doctors and other professionals to furnish docuentar%
proof that the% has either re/trained or had underta*en continuin! education
courses as a re(uireent for rene#al of their licenses. It is not claied that
these re(uireents pose an un#arranted deprivation of a propert% ri!ht
under the due process clause. So lon! as professionals and other #or*ers
eet reasonable re!ulator% standards no such deprivation e$ists.
Finall%, it is a futile !esture on the part of petitioners to invo*e the non/
ipairent clause of the .onstitution to support their ar!uent that the
!overnent cannot enact the assailed re!ulator% easures because the%
abrid!e the freedo to contract. In Philippine Association of Service
Exporters Inc. vs. Drilon, #e held that @GtHhe non/ipairent clause of the
.onstitution... ust %ield to the loftier purposes tar!eted b% the
!overnent.@
15
-(uall% iportant, into ever% contract is read provisions of
e$istin! la#, and al#a%s, a reservation of the police po#er for so lon! as the
a!reeent deals #ith a subAect ipressed #ith the public #elfare.
& last point. Petitioners su!!est that the sin!lin! out of entertainers and
perforin! artists under the assailed departent orders constitutes class
le!islation #hich violates the e(ual protection clause of the .onstitution. Ee
do not a!ree.
The e(ual protection clause is directed principall% a!ainst undue favor and
individual or class privile!e. It is not intended to prohibit le!islation #hich is
liited to the obAect to #hich it is directed or b% the territor% in #hich it is to
operate. It does not re(uire absolute e(ualit%, but erel% that all persons be
treated ali*e under li*e conditions both as to privile!es conferred and
liabilities iposed.
16
Ee have held, tie and a!ain, that the e(ual protection
clause of the .onstitution does not forbid classification for so lon! as such
classification is based on real and substantial differences havin! a
reasonable relation to the subAect of the particular le!islation.
1
6 If
classification is !erane to the purpose of the la#, concerns all ebers of
the class, and applies e(uall% to present and future conditions, the
classification does not violate the e(ual protection !uarantee.
In the case at bar, the challen!ed Departent Order clearl% applies to all
perforin! artists and entertainers destined for Aobs abroad. These orders,
#e stressed hereinfore, further the .onstitutional andate re(uirin!
!overnent to protect our #or*force, particularl% those #ho a% be prone
to abuse and e$ploitation as the% are be%ond the ph%sical reach of
!overnent re!ulator% a!encies. The tra!ic incidents ust soeho# stop,
but short of absolutel% curtailin! the ri!ht of these perforers and
entertainers to #or* abroad, the assailed easures enable our !overnent
to assue a easure of control.
EC-R-FOR-, findin! no reversible error in the decision sou!ht to be
revie#ed, petition is hereb% D-NI-D.
SO ORD-R-D.
4