(Case No.

XX; OFWs)
Philippine Association Of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon and Achacoso
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988

Doctrine:

"Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of employment alone. What concerns the
Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, just, and
humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send its sons and daughters to strange lands
because it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home. Under these circumstances, the
Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling expatriates have adequate protection,
personally and economically, while away from home. In this case, the Government has evidence,
an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the lack or inadequacy of such protection,
and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered an indefinite ban on deployment.

FACTS:

PASEI, a firm engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for
overseas placement, challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of
1988, of the DOLE, in the character of "Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension Of
Deployment Of Filipino Domestic And Household Workers," in this petition for certiorari and
prohibition.

Specifically, the measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or females;" that it "does
not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills;"
and that it is violative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the
lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not executive, in character.

In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of Article XIII, of the Constitution,
providing for worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights
and benefits as may be provided by law." Said Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was
passed in the absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finally, to be in violation of the
Charter's non-impairment clause, in addition to the "great and irreparable injury" that PASEI
members face should the Order be further enforced.

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the
POEA, filed a Comment informing the Court that the respondent Labor Secretary lifted the
deployment ban in the states of Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada, Hongkong, United States, Italy,
Norway, Austria, and Switzerland. In submitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines," the
Solicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine State.

It is admitted that Department Order No. 1 is in the nature of a police power measure. The only
question is whether or not it is valid under the Constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not D.O. No. 1 is constitutional;

HELD:

Yes, it is.

First, the concept of police power, or the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere
with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare is well-established in
this jurisdiction. It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe
its origin to the Charter. Along with the taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn in the
very fact of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has
enabled it to perform the most vital functions of governance.

There is also 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. The Court is satisfied
that the classification made-the preference for female workers — rests on substantial
distinctions. It was largely a matter of evidence (that women domestic workers are being ill-
treated abroad in massive instances) and not upon some fanciful or arbitrary yardstick that the
Government acted in this case. This Court agrees that in the midst of the terrible mistreatment
Filipina workers have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment will be for their own good and
welfare.

The Court finds, finally, the impugned guidelines to be applicable to all female domestic
overseas workers. That it does not apply to "all Filipina workers" is not an argument for
unconstitutionality. Had the ban been given universal applicability, then it would have been
unreasonable and arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of them are similarly circumstanced.
What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or group of persons within
an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage to
another person or group of persons.

"Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of employment alone. What concerns the
Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent, just, and
humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send its sons and daughters to strange lands
because it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home. Under these circumstances, the
Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling expatriates have adequate protection,
personally and economically, while away from home. In this case, the Government has evidence,
an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the lack or inadequacy of such protection,
and as part of its duty, it has precisely ordered an indefinite ban on deployment.

.
 Case No. XX; Anti-Trafficking Against Persons
G.R. No. 211465 December 3, 2014
People of the Philippines vs. Shirley A. Casio

Doctrine:

Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB to be trafficked, we affirm the text and spirit of
our laws. Minors should spend their adolescence moulding their character in environments free
of the vilest motives and the worse of other human beings.

FACTS:

In 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a nongovernmental organization, coordinated with

Several officers composed the team of police operatives. Among of which were PO1 Luardo and
PO1 Veloso who were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to
entertain their guests. The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25. These
rooms were adjacent to each other. Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25
was for the rest of the police team.

PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to a local area in Cebu City’s red light district. Accused
noticed them and called their attention by saying "Chicks mo dong?" (Do you like girls, guys?)
After a few minutes, accused returned with AAA and BBB, private complainants in this case.
Accused asked the officers if they were satisfied with the two.

After convincing the accused to come with them to Queensland Motel, the marked money was
handed to the accused. The rest of the team then proceeded to the room, arrested accused, and
informed her of her constitutional rights. Meanwhile, AAA and BBB were brought to Room 25
and placed in the custody of the representatives from the IJM and the DSWD. AAA admitted
that she works as a prostitute.

Accused argues that there was no valid entrapment and that AAA admittedly works as a
prostitute.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons;

HELD:

Yes.

The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of
exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of
the means set forth in the law. 
The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means
employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or
deceptive means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will.

Based on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of acts of trafficking in
persons, accused performed all the elements in the commission of the offense when she peddled
AAA and BBB and offered their services to the decoy officers in exchange for money. The
offense was also qualified because the trafficked persons were minors.

The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of
seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a
prostitute without one’s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different
strangers is horrendous and atrocious.

Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of poverty and its accompanying
desperation that compels our women to endure indignities. It reflects the weaknesses of that
society even as it convicts those who deviantly thrive in such hopelessness. We should continue
to strive for the best of our world, where our choices of human intimacies are real choices, and
not the last resort taken just to survive. Human intimacies enhance our best and closest
relationships. It serves as a foundation for two human beings to face life’s joys and challenges
while continually growing together with many shared experiences. The quality of our human
relationships defines the world that we create also for others.

Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB, therefore, to be trafficked, we affirm the text
and spirit of our laws. Minors should spend their adolescence moulding their character in
environments free of the vilest motives and the worse of other human beings. The evidence and
the law compel us to affirm the conviction of accused in this case.