31) Fernandez Vs Torres 4j251d

FERNANDEZ vs. TORRES (1992) GR No. 102940, 215 SCRA 489 FACTS: 1. On November 18, 1991, the First National Tripartite Conference for the Protection of Overseas Entertainers was convened in order to evaluate a Government proposal for the complete interdiction or prohibition of overseas deployment of Philippine entertainers and performing artists following the growing number of documented reports about exploitative working conditions, harrassment, forcible detention, physical injuries, death, and rape . 2. The consensus among the management and labor representatives in the conference was that the Government should adopt a policy of selective ( rather than comprehensive/complete) prohibition for the deployment of Philippine entertainers abroad to avoid adverse effects to the country’s manpower export program. In addition, the labor representatives recommended that the minimum age for performing artists seeking overseas deployment be raised from 18 to 23. 3. In lieu with the decision and recommendations in the conference, DOLE issued Circular No. 01-91 dated November 20, 1991 entitled: ‘Prescribing Additional Requirements, Conditions and Procedures for the Deployment of Performing Artists’. 4. Petitioners Adelpha Fernandez, Marissa Domingo, Eunice Ofrecia, Roselyn Mendoza, Arlene Caballero, Almira Miranda and Mary Christine Valenton who alleged themselves as ‘qualified performing artists’ of ages 18-22 challenged the constitutional validity of Item No. 1 of the said DOLE circular on the grounds that it is violative of the equal protection clause and due process clause of the Constitution. This was done through filing the petitions of certiorari and prohibition against Ruben Torres, Secretary DOLE and Jose Sarmiento, of POEA to stop the implementation and enforcement of Item No. 1 of DOLE Circular 01-91. Item No. 1 of the aforementioned DOLE Circular provides as follows : ‘1. No Filipino entertainer shall be deployed outside the Philippines except for legitimate performing artists consisting of musicians, singers and of dance troupes. In all cases, the performing artists must have a track record of legitimate and reputable performance in the Philippines for at least one year. In no case shall the performing artist be below 23 years old. The Secretary of Labor and Employment may, for justifiable reasons, exempt performing artists from the coverage thereof.’

JUDICIAL INQUIRY: The firmly settled rule when it comes to actions involving constitutional issues is that the issue will not be heard or resolved by the courts unless the following requirements of judicial inquiry or review are met: (1) the existence of an actual case or controversy; (2) the party raising the constitutional issue must have a personal and substantial interest in the resolution thereof; (3) the controversy must be raised at the earliest reasonable opportunity and (4) that the resolution of the constitutional issue must, be indispensable for the final determination of the controversy. 5. Appraising the case at bar based on the requirements, The Solicitor General urges that it does not have a justiciable controversy for having been filed prematurely. ISSUE: Whether or not the case satisfies the first requirement for judicial inquiry (i.e. the existence of an actual case or controversy). HELD: The court agrees with the Solicitor General that the case has been filed prematurely since the petitioners have failed to allege that they have first and foremost applied for the exemption provided in Item No. 1 of the assailed DOLE circular where it was expressly stated that the Secretary of Labor and Employment can exercise the discretionary power to exempt performing artists from the coverage of the said item in the circular. There being no application or denial of exemptions yet, there is no actual case or controversy to speak of. The petitioners have failed to show the first requisite of a judicial inquiry i.e. the existence of an actual case or controversy. Hence, the petition for certiorari and prohibition are dismissed.