View full case

JMM PROMOTION v. CA

FACTS:

This case centers around the government's authority to regulate the deployment of female entertainers to Japan by imposing a requirement for an Artist Record Book (ARB) to be obtained from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) as a prerequisite for processing employment contracts. Initially, the ban on sending performing artists to Japan was put into effect by former President Corazon Aquino following the death of Maricris Sioson in 1991. Subsequently, the ban was lifted, and in order to establish guidelines for the training, testing, certification, and deployment of performing artists overseas, the government created the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC). Acting in accordance with this, the Secretary of Labor issued Department Order No. 3 which mandated performing artists to secure an ARB before their employment contracts could be processed by the POEA.

The Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the Philippines (FETMOP) filed a class suit challenging the constitutionality of the department orders. Alongside this, JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. and Kary International, Inc. intervened in the case. The trial court ruled against the petitioners by denying their request for a writ of preliminary injunction and ultimately dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the respondent court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the validity of the ARB requirement and the department orders as legitimate exercises of the police power.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the requirement of an Artist Record Book (ARB) as a precondition to overseas employment for female entertainers to Japan constitutes a violation of the due process clause and is an invalid exercise of police power.

  2. Whether the ARB and related Department Orders violated the constitutional rights of performing artists, specifically the right to travel, non-impairment of contracts, and the equal protection clause.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the ARB requirement and the questioned Department Orders were a valid exercise of the state's police power. The requirement for an ARB was aimed at promoting the welfare and protecting the rights of female entertainers abroad, reducing instances of exploitation, and ensuring only qualified artists are deployed.

  2. The Court upheld the Department Orders on several fronts:

    • Right to Travel The requirement of an ARB does not violate the constitutional right to travel as it is a reasonable regulation imposed in the interest of public welfare.

    • Non-Impairment of Contracts The imposition of additional requirements like the ARB does not impair contracts as it constitutes a legitimate exercise of police power to regulate a profession in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare.

    • Equal Protection The specific targeting of entertainers and performing artists under the Department Orders does not constitute class legislation or violate the equal protection clause, as the classification was reasonable and necessary to achieve the purpose of protecting vulnerable workers abroad.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Police Power: The government possesses broad discretion to regulate professions to protect public welfare, especially in creating standards aimed to prevent exploitation and abuse.

  • Regulatory Measures: Government regulations requiring licenses, certification, or proof of qualification for employment is a valid exercise of police power, even if it affects property rights (i.e., the right to practice a profession).

  • Protection of Overseas Workers: The government has a constitutional mandate to extend the fullest protection to workers, both locally and overseas, affirming labor as a primary social economic force.

  • Non-impairment Clause: The non-impairment clause of the Constitution must yield to the broader objectives of government in protecting public welfare and safety.

  • Equal Protection: Legislation that classifies individuals or groups is not unconstitutional if it is reasonable and directly related to a legitimate government objective.

  • Due Process: Regulatory schemes, even if they restrict individual rights to some extent, do not necessarily violate due process if they are designed to protect public interests, such as health or safety, and do not arbitrarily interfere with individual rights.