JMM Promotion v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 120095 (August 5, 1996)

Facts:

The case revolves around the government's regulation of the deployment of female entertainers to Japan, specifically the requirement of an Artist Record Book (ARB) as a precondition for processing contracts for overseas employment by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). This regulation was instituted following the tragic death of Filipino entertainer Maricris Sioson in 1991, which prompted former President Corazon C. Aquino to impose a total ban on the deployment of performing artists abroad. The ban was later lifted after industry leaders committed to support a program aimed at improving the deployment system.

In response, the Secretary of Labor and Employment issued Department Order No. 28, which established the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC) to create guidelines for the training, testing, certification, and deployment of performing artists. Subsequently, on January 6, 1994, the Secretary issued Department Order No. 3, which outlined the procedures and requirements for screening performing artists, including the issuance of the ARB for those who successfully completed the necessary training and testing.

The Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the Philippines (FETMOP) filed a class suit against these department orders, arguing that they violated constitutional rights, including the right to travel, abridged existing employment contracts, and deprived artists of their licenses without due process. The trial court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, and upon appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, asserting that the orders were a valid exercise of the state's police power.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the requirement of an Artist Record Book (ARB) constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to travel and due process.
2. Whether the issuance of the ARB and related department orders constitutes an arbitrary exercise of police power.
3. Whether the regulations infringe upon the non-impairment clause of the Constitution regarding existing contracts.
4. Whether the classification of performing artists for regulatory purposes violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Arguments:

Petitioners' Arguments:

• The ARB requirement infringes on the constitutional right to travel and constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property rights without due process.
• The department orders violate existing employment contracts and are discriminatory against performing artists.
• The regulations constitute class legislation, violating the equal protection clause by singling out entertainers.

Respondents' Arguments:

• The issuance of the ARB is a valid exercise of the state's police power aimed at protecting the welfare of Filipino performing artists, particularly women, who are often vulnerable to exploitation.
• The regulations are necessary to ensure that only qualified individuals are deployed, thereby reducing the risk of abuse and exploitation.
• The non-impairment clause does not prevent the government from enacting regulations that serve the public good, and the equal protection clause allows for reasonable classifications based on substantial differences.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court upheld the validity of the department orders and the ARB requirement, emphasizing that the state has a compelling interest in regulating the deployment of performing artists to protect them from exploitation and abuse. The court noted that the police power of the state allows for reasonable regulations that may affect personal liberties or property rights when aimed at promoting the general welfare.

The court found that the ARB requirement was not arbitrary but rather a necessary measure to ensure that performing artists possess the requisite skills and training, thereby minimizing the risk of exploitation. The court also clarified that while the right to work is a property right, it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation.

Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the regulations violated the non-impairment clause, stating that existing laws and regulations are inherently part of any contract. The court also ruled that the classification of performing artists for regulatory purposes did not violate the equal protection clause, as it was based on substantial differences relevant to the protection of a vulnerable sector.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• The state has broad police power to regulate professions and trades to protect public welfare, particularly for vulnerable groups.
• The right to work, while a property right, is subject to reasonable regulation and does not constitute an absolute right.
• The non-impairment clause of the Constitution does not preclude the government from enacting regulations that serve the public good.
• Class legislation is permissible if it is based on real and substantial differences relevant to the purpose of the law.