G.R. No. 120095. August 5, 1996] JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., and KARY INTERNATIONAL, INC.

, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MA. NIEVES CONFESSOR, (DOLE Sec), HON. JOSE BRILLANTES, (DOLE Acting Sec) and HON. FELICISIMO JOSON, (POEA Admin), respondents. Re: Government's power to control deployment of female entertainers to Japan by requiring an Artist Record Book (ARB) as a precondition to the processing by the POEA of any contract for overseas employment. Facts:

In 1991, Pres. Corazon C. Aquino ordered a total ban on the deployment of performing artists to Japan and other foreign destinations. This was after the death of Maricris Sioson. DOLE Secretary issued Department Order No. 28, creating the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC). EIAC was tasked with issuing guidelines on the training, testing certification and deployment of performing artists abroad Labor Secretary, on January 6, 1994, issued Department Order No. 3 establishing various procedures and requirements for screening performing artists under a new system of training, testing, certification and deployment of the former o Artists who pass the test, training and certification requirement are to be issued an Artist's Record Book (ARB), a POEA prerequisite in processing any contract of employment The following Dept orders were issued to improve the system: o Department Order No. 3-A: additional guidelines on the training, testing, certification and deployment of performing artists. o Department Order No. 3-B: Artist Record Book (ARB) requirement of proof of academic and skills training and passing the required tests. o Department Order No. 3-E: minimum salary a performing artist (not less than US$600.00 for those bound for Japan) and the authorized deductions therefrom. o Department Order No. 3-F: guidelines on the issuance and use of the ARB by returning performing artists (undergo a Special Orientation Program and pass the academic test). January 27, 1995, the Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the Philippines (FETMOP) filed a class suit assailing these department orders. Accdly, the issuance of the ARB was discriminatory and illegal and "in gross violation of the constitutional right to life liberty and property." The Federation prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the aforestated orders. Their contentions: o It violated the constitutional right to travel; o It abridged existing contracts for employment; o It deprived individual artists of their licenses without due process of law February 2, 1992, JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. and Kary International, Inc. filed a Motion for Intervention February 21, 1995, the trial court DENIED the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the complaint.

Issues: WON the assailed Dept Orders: 1. Violated the constitutional right to life, liberty, and property 2. Violated the non-impairment of contract clause 3. Violated the equal protection clause

Ratio: On Issue 1: (NO) ARB and Dept Orders are valid exercise of police power Facts that led to said Dept Orders: o 1984, the Philippines was the largest labor sending country in Asia and there were over 450,000 documented and clandestine or illegal (undocumented) workers. o Women constituted 47%-58% of those deployed abroad between 1987-1991 o Most of our women, a large number employed as domestic helpers and entertainers, worked under exploitative conditions "marked by physical and personal abuse The ARB requirement rationalizes the method of screening performing artists by requiring reasonable educational and artistic skills. The other requirements on minimum salary and certificates on the place and nature of work allows for closer government monitoring and protection Relevant Constitutional provisions: o Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. As to property right over the accreditation to work abroad: o No right is absolute. The State can regulate a profession, business or trade. As long as the professionals and other workers meet reasonable regulatory standards no such deprivation exists. On Issue 2: (NO) Though the assailed Dept Orders impair the freedom to contract, these are still a valid exercise of police power. On Issue 3: (NO) The singling out of entertainers and performing artists DOES NOT constitute a class legislation. The Department Order clearly applies to all performing artists and entertainers destined for jobs abroad. Equal protection does not require absolute equality, but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Classification is allowed as long as such classification is based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation. If classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all members of the class, and applies equally to present and future conditions, the classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee. Held: Petition is hereby DENIED.