Salazar v Achacoso PDF

P. M. R. Gairanod

Constitutional Law 2

Prof. F. Hilbay 

SALAZAR v ACHACOSO

Hortencia Salazar, petitioner  Hon. Tomas Achacoso (POEA Administrator) Administrator) and a nd Atty. Atty. Ferdie Marquez, Marque z, respondents  March 14, 1990 J. Sa Sarm rmie ient nto o Facts: - October 21, 1987: Rosalies Tesoro, Tesoro, in a sworn statement filed with Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, alleged that Hortencia Salazar, her former manager, refused to return her PECC card. When she arrived from Japan, Salazar asked her to come to her house, got her PECC card and promised she’d find Tesoro Tesoro a booking in Japan. Since nine months had h ad passed since and no booking for her has been made, Tesoro decided to transfer to another accompany but Salazar refused to surrender her PECC card. - Atty. Atty. Ferdinand Marquez, to whom the complaint was assigned, sent Salazar a telegram directing her appear before him. On the same day, Administrator Administrator Tomas Tomas Achacoso, having determined that Salazar had no license to operate a recruitment agency issued Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 pursuant to the powers he claims vested in him under Presidential Decree No. 1920 and Presidential Decree No. 2018 - PD 1920: promulgated by former President Ferdinand Marcos in the exercise of his legislative powers to amend Section 38, paragraph c (which gave the Minister of Labor the power only the power to recommend the arrest and detention de tention of any person engaged in illegal recruitment), granting the Minister of Labor arrest and closure powers - PD 2018: also promulgated by Marcos, granting the Minister of Labor search and seizure powers - The C&S Order also demanded the closure closure of Salazar’s recruitment recruitment agency and the seizure seizure of “documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment”. It alleges that, apart from having no license to operate, Salazar violated Articles 34 and 38 of the New Labor Code. - Articles Articles 34 and 38 of the New Labor Code reiterate reiterate the powers granted granted to the Administra Administrator tor in PDs 1920 and 2018 and echo the government’s ban on illegal recruitment - POEA Director on Licensing and Regulation Estelita Espiritu issued issued an office order designating Atty. Marquez and two other lawyers as members of a team tasked to implement the said Order. The group, assisted by the Mandaluyong police and mediamen from People’s Journal and News Today proceeded to the th e residence of Salazar where she was operating Hannalie Dance D ance Studio. They were allowed entry by Mrs. Flora Salazar who told them that the studio stud io was accredited but could present no proof of accreditation. The team chanced upon practicing dancers and seized assorted costumes. - Petitioner’s lawyers filed with POEA POEA a letter requesting the return of the properties seized, claiming that POEA had violated due process of law by not giving her prior notice (Sec 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution) and her right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Sec 2, Article III). She also filed the instant petition. Issue: May the POEA Administrator (or Secretary of Labor) validly validl y issue warrants of search and a nd seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code? Held: Petition GRANTED. Article 38 of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. POEA is directed to return the seized items.

P. M. R. Gairanod

Constitutional Law 2

Prof. F. Hilbay 

Rationale: - Only a judge may issue warrants of search and arrest according to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. - It can’t even be done my mayors or mere prosecuting bodies. - The quoted PDs issued by Marcos are the “dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilight moments”. - The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, must go through the judicial process. - The search and seizure order, assuming for the sake of argument that it is valid, was in the nature of a general warrant and, hence, null and void. - A warrant must clearly identify the things to be seized.