CASE DIGEST
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION
OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. VS. DRILON
G.R. No. 81958, June
30, 1988
EN BANC, LABRADOR, J.
Constitutional Law |
Equal protection of the laws | Valid Classification
It is well-settled that “equality before
the law” under the Constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights
among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such
classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the
purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing conditions; and (4)
they apply equally to all members of the same class.
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc (PASEI) is assailing the validity of a department order issued by DOLE (Department Order 1) which temporarily suspends the deployment of female domestic and household overseas workers. PASEI claims that it is a discrimination against males or females, it violates the right to travel, it is an invalid exercise of legislative power, and it violates the constitutional guaranty of workers’ participation in policy-making affecting their rights and benefits.
Whether or not D.O. 1 violates the equal protection
clause.
NO. There is no question that Department Order No. 1
applies only to “female contract workers,” but it does not thereby make an
undue discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that “equality
before the law” under the Constitution does not import a perfect identity of
rights among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided that (1)
such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to
the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing conditions; and
(4) they apply equally to all members of the same class. The Court is satisfied
that the classification made—the preference for female workers—rests on
substantial distinctions. As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well
aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad,
especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by,
in not a few cases, physical and personal abuse. As precisely the caretaker of Constitutional
rights, the Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation. In
fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the government’s efforts.
Whether
or not D.O. 1 is violative of the right to travel.
NO. The right
to travel is subject, among other things, to the requirements of “public
safety,” “as may be provided by law.” Department Order No. 1 is a valid
implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to “afford
protection to labor,” pursuant to the respondent Department of Labor’s
rule-making authority vested in it by the Labor Code. The petitioner assumes
that it is unreasonable simply because of its impact on the right to travel,
but as we have stated, the right itself is not absolute. The disputed Order is
a valid qualification thereto.
No comments:
Post a Comment