You are on page 1of 1

Salazar v Achacoso

Rosalie Tesoro filed a sworn statement with the Philippine Overseas Employment
Association because his manager Hortencia Salazar refused to give her back her PECC
Card.
Atty. Ferdinand Marquez to whom said complaint was assigned sent a telegram to
Petitioner directing him to appear before the POEA Anti-illegal Recruitment Unit.
On the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a
recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued his
challenged Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205. Acting pursuant to the powers vested in
him under Presidential Decree No. 1920 and Executive Order No. 1022, he designated a
team to implement the Order, alleging that petitioner committed/are committing acts
prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same
code.
The team confiscated assorted costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion
Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar.
Petitioner wrote a letter to POEA requesting the return of the personal properties seized
alleging such seizure was in violated due process of law and the right of people against
unreasonable searches and seizure. However before POEA could answer, Petitioner filed
the instant petition.
POEA filed a criminal complaint against Petitioner.
Petitioner filed a suit before the SC for prohibition of the acts already committed. Although
such was filed late, the SC took cognizance of the petition as one for certiorari in view of
the public interest involved.

WN the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue
warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code? Under Article III,
Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is only judges who may issue warrants of arrest and search.

Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code was a result of the amendments of President
Marcos.
o Under PD 1693, the Minister of Labor merely exercised recommendatory powers. In
the exercise of his legislative powers under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973
Constitution, President Marcos amended PD 1693 and gave the Minister arrest and
closure powers under PD 1620 and search and seizure powers under PD 2018.
These were eventually etched into the LC.
Because under the new Constitution, only judges may issue warrants of search and arrest,
the Court declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no
force and effect.
The reliance of the SolGen on Moreno v Vivo is not valid because the case involved a
deportation case. An arrest ordered by the President in deportation cases is valid because
of the recognized supremacy of the Executive in matters involving foreign affairs.
Even assuming it was validly issues, the order was a general warrant and thus null and
void.

You might also like