The Executive Secretary v. CA, G.R. NO. 131719, May 25, 2004

Ponente: CALLEJO, SR. J.

Petition for declaratory relief to declare as unconstitutional certain sections of RA 8042

Summary: 

Petitioners: The Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Labor & Employment, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, OWWA Adminstrator, and POEA Admistrator

Respondents: The Hon. Court of Appeals and Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter (ARCO-PHIL), Inc.

ARCO-Phil Inc filed a petition to enjoin petitioners from implementing RA 8042 (Migrant Workers & Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) because of its unconstitutionality. Petitioners questioned ARCO-Phil’s legal standing as an organization. The SC ruled that associations are proper parties to file complaints/petitions in behalf of their constituents, in the case at bar, ARCO-Phil did have locus standi, but it has no locus standi to file the petition for and in behalf of unskilled workers. It failed to implead any unskilled workers in its petition. Nonetheless, the SC found the RTC to have committed grave abuse of discretion and nullified the Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the RTC.

----------------------------------------

Facts:

ARCO-Phil., Inc filed a petition for declaratory relief to declare as unconstitutional certain sections of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers & Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) and prayed for issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin petitioners from implementing said Act.

This was done in behalf of its members (11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies).

ARCO-Phil., Inc. claimed that:

(1) its members will suffer grave damage/injury from enforcement of Act and will prejudice other local recruitment agencies; and

(2) certain sections of RA8042 were unconstitutional:

    (a) Prohibits deployment of unskilled workers = Deprives “unskilled” workers right to seek employment abroad;

   (b) Grants incentives to service contractors & manning agencies, NOT licensed and authorized recruiters = Discriminates against licensed and registered recruiters who are deprived of their right to property and due process, and to the “equality of the person”

    (c) Licensed & authorized recruitment agencies are penalized equally as illegal recruiters (life imprisonment); and 

    (d) Exclusive jurisdiction over related cases is given to NLRC and RTC = Impairs the power of SC to promulgate rules of procedure

RTC QC granted ARCO-Phil’s plea for preliminary injunction upon a bond of P50,000.

CA affirmed the order and writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. 

Hence, this petition.

----------------------------------------

Petitioners claimed that:

1. ARCO Phil is not the real party in interest

2. Petition is still premature (Rules and regulations implementing law has yet to be promulgated)

3. P50,000 injunction bond fixed by Court is inadequate to answer for damages which petitioners-officials may sustain

----------------------------------------

Issue 1of 2: WON respondents, a non-stock and non-profit organization, have locus standi.

Held: Yes. 

The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents.

In Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, the Court held that standing jus tertii would be recognized only if it can be shown that the party suing has some substantial relation to the third party, or that the right of the third party would be diluted unless the party in court is allowed to espouse the third party's constitutional claims.

In this case, the respondent filed the petition for declaratory relief under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court for and in behalf of its eleven (11) licensed and registered recruitment agencies which are its members, and which approved separate resolutions expressly authorizing the respondent to file the said suit for and in their behalf. We note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, the respondent was organized for the purposes inter alia of promoting and supporting the growth and development of the manpower recruitment industry, both in the local and international levels; providing, creating and exploring employment opportunities for the exclusive benefit of its general membership; enhancing and promoting the general welfare and protection of Filipino workers; and, to act as the representative of any individual, company, entity or association on matters related to the manpower recruitment industry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary to accomplish the purposes embodied therein. The respondent is, thus, the appropriate party to assert the rights of its members, because it and its members are in every practical sense identical. The respondent asserts that the assailed provisions violate the constitutional rights of its members and the officers and employees thereof. The respondent is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their voices and the redress of their grievances.

However, the respondent has no locus standi to file the petition for and in behalf of unskilled workers. We note that it even failed to implead any unskilled workers in its petition. Furthermore, in failing to implead, as parties-Petitioners, the eleven licensed and registered recruitment agencies it claimed to represent, the respondent failed to comply with Section 2 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, since the eleven licensed and registered recruitment agencies for which the respondent filed the suit are specifically named in the petition, the amended petition is deemed amended to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Issue 2 of 2: WON the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order and the writ of preliminary injunction on a bond of only P50,000. 

Held: Yes.

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a law assailed to be unconstitutional, the party must establish that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief and must demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits, or that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor

The fear or chilling effect of the assailed penal provisions of the law on the members of the respondent does not by itself justify prohibiting the State from enforcing them against those whom the State believes in good faith to be punishable under the laws.

It must be borne in mind that subject to constitutional limitations, Congress is empowered to define what acts or omissions shall constitute a crime and to prescribe punishments therefor. The power is inherent in Congress and is part of the sovereign power of the State to maintain peace and order. Whatever views may be entertained regarding the severity of punishment, whether one believes in its efficiency or its futility, these are peculiarly questions of legislative policy. The comparative gravity of crimes and whether their consequences are more or less injurious are matters for the State and Congress itself to determine. Specification of penalties involves questions of legislative policy

Penalizing unlicensed and licensed recruitment agencies and their officers and employees and their relatives employed in government agencies charged with the enforcement of the law for illegal recruitment and imposing life imprisonment for those who commit large scale illegal recruitment is not offensive to the Constitution. The accused may be convicted of illegal recruitment and large scale illegal recruitment only if, after trial, the prosecution is able to prove all the elements of the crime charged.

There is no allegation in the amended petition or evidence adduced by the respondent that the officers and/or employees of its members had been threatened with any indictments for violations of the penal provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042. Neither is there any allegation therein that any of its members and/or their officers and employees committed any of the acts enumerated in Section 6(a) to (m) of the law for which they could be indicted. Neither did the respondent adduce any evidence in the RTC that any or all of its members or a great number of other duly licensed and registered recruitment agencies had to stop their business operations because of fear of indictments under Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 8042. The respondent merely speculated and surmised that licensed and registered recruitment agencies would close shop and stop business operations because of the assailed penal provisions of the law. A writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of penal laws cannot be based on such conjectures or speculations. The Court cannot take judicial notice that the processing of deployment papers of overseas workers have come to a virtual standstill at the POEA because of the assailed provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042. The respondent must adduce evidence to prove its allegation, and the petitioners accorded a chance to adduce controverting evidence.

The respondent even failed to adduce any evidence to prove irreparable injury because of the enforcement of Section 10(1) (2) of Rep. Act No. 8042. Its fear or apprehension that, because of time constraints, its members would have to defend foreign employees in cases before the Labor Arbiter is based on speculations. Even if true, such inconvenience or difficulty is hardly irreparable injury.

-------------------------------------

DECISION:  The decision of the CA is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Order of the and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by RTC are NULLIFIED.