SC upholds OFW law

The Supreme Court (SC) en banc has upheld the portion of Republic Act 8042 (the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) covering “illegal recruitment” earlier struck down as unconstitutional by a Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In a 17-page decision penned by Justice Roberto Abad, the court declared Sections 6, 7, 9, and the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 of RA 8042 “valid and constitutional.”
Section 6 defines the crime of “illegal recruitment” and enumerates the acts constituting the same. Section 7 provides the penalties for prohibited acts. Section 9 of the law allows the filing of criminal actions arising from “illegal recruitment” before the RTC of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. Finally, the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10 holds the corporate directors, officers, and partners of recruitment and placement agencies jointly and solidarily liable for money claims and damages that may be adjudged against the latter agencies.

The court found “illegal recruitment” as defined in Section 6 of RA 8042 clear and unambiguous. “By its terms, persons who engage in ‘canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers’ without the appropriate government license or authority are guilty of illegal recruitment whether or not they commit the wrongful acts enumerated in that section. On the other hand, recruiters who engage in the canvassing, enlisting, etc. of (overseas Filipino workers or OFWs), although with the appropriate government license or authority, are guilty of illegal recruitment only if they commit any of the wrongful acts enumerated in Section 6,” the court held.

In fixing uniform penalties, as provided for in Section 7, for each of the enumerated acts under Section 6, the court ruled that “Congress was within its prerogative to determine what individual acts are equally reprehensible” consistent with the state policy of according full protection to labor and deserving of the same penalties. Reiterating People v. Ventura, it held that “the State under its police power may prescribe rules and regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them against the consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud.”

Read the full story at: Tribune.net.ph