View full case

HORTENCIA SALAZAR v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO

FACTS:

Rosalie Tesoro filed a sworn statement with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) charging Hortencia Salazar with illegal recruitment. On November 3, 1987, public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent a telegram to petitioner Hortencia Salazar, directing her to appear before him regarding the complaint. On the same day, POEA Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order, ordering the closure of Salazar's recruitment agency due to lack of license and the commission of unlawful acts under the Labor Code. On January 26, 1988, a POEA team, accompanied by police officers and media, entered Salazar's residence and seized personal properties and costumes. On January 28, 1988, Salazar's counsel requested the return of the seized properties, alleging violations of due process and unlawful search and seizure. On February 2, 1988, Salazar filed a petition for prohibition, but the court treated it as a petition for certiorari considering the grave public interest involved. The lone issue raised in the case was the validity of the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of arrest and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code. The court noted that under the new Constitution, only judges are authorized to issue such warrants.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force has the authority to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest.

  2. Whether the Minister of Labor or his authorized representatives have the power to recommend the arrest and detention of individuals engaged in illegal recruitment and to order the search and seizure of documents related to such activities.

  3. Whether or not the search and seizure order issued by the Commissioner of Immigration and the Director of NBI is valid.

  4. Whether or not the search warrants used in the case are in the nature of general warrants.

RULING:

  1. The Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force does not have the authority to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest. Only judges have the power to determine probable cause and issue warrants of arrest or search warrants.

  2. The Minister of Labor or his authorized representatives may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. The authorities must go through the judicial process.

  3. The search and seizure order issued by the Commissioner of Immigration and the Director of NBI is invalid. The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is exceptional and cannot be extended to other cases. It is the sole domain of the courts to issue warrants of arrest and search, as stated in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

  4. The search warrants used in the case are in the nature of general warrants. They fail to clearly identify the things to be seized, making them null and void. The warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in a broad and general manner, similar to the warrants considered void by the U.S. Supreme Court in previous cases.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of probable cause and issuance of warrants of arrest or search warrants may only be done by judges, not by a mere prosecuting body.

  • The power to recommend the arrest and detention of individuals engaged in illegal recruitment and to order search and seizure of related documents must go through the judicial process. The Minister of Labor or his authorized representatives may no longer issue such warrants.

  • Judges have the exclusive authority to issue warrants of arrest and search, as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

  • The power to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is exceptional and limited to the President or the Commissioner of Immigration, following a final order of deportation.

  • Search warrants must clearly identify the things to be seized to be considered valid. Warrants that are too general in describing the articles sought to be seized are considered null and void.