8/10/2019 MM Promotion and Management vs CA

1/2

Prepared by: Katrina S. Diploma 1

JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT INC. VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 120095

August 5, 1996

Substantive Due Process: OFW Deployment Ban

FACTS:The controversial death of Maricris Sioson urged President Cory Aquino to order a totalban against the deployment of performing artists to Japan and other foreign countries. This was

eventually rescinded when leaders of the overseas employment industry ensured the full support

for a program that would cure the system of deployment. As such, the Secretary of Labor andEmployment created the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC) whose job was to

issue guidelines on the training, testing certificates and deployment of performing artists abroad.

In line with this, the EIAC issued Department Order No. 3.

On January 27, 1995, the Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the Philippines

(FETMOP) filed a class suit assailing Department Order No. 3 which establishes various

procedures and requirements for screening performing artists under a new system of training,testing, certification and deployment of the former and other related issuance, principally

contending that the said orders: 1.) violated the constitutional right to travel; 2.) abridged existing

contracts for employment; and 3.) deprived individual artists of their licenses without due

process of law. FETMOP also averred that the issuance of the Artist Record Book (ARB) wasdiscriminatory and illegal and in gross violation of the constitutional right to life liberty and

property. FETMOP prayed for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against the

orders.

JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. (JMM) and Kary International, Inc. (Kary) filed a

motion for intervention in the civil case which was granted by the trial court. However, on

February 21, 1995, the trial court issued an order denying petitioner's prayer for writ ofpreliminary injunction and dismissed the compliant. An appeal was made to the trial court

regarding its decision but it was also however, dismissed. As a consequences, ARB requirement

was issued. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision and concluded that the saidissuance constituted a valid exercise of Police Power.

ISSUE:1. Whether or not the said issuance of ARB is a valid exercise of Police Power.

HELD:

1. Yes.

The ARB requirement and questioned Department Order related to its issuance wereissued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to a valid exercise of Police Power by the State. The

court said that proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been

upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of police power by the state particularly whentheir conduct affects either the execution of a legitimate governmental functions, the preservation

8/10/2019 MM Promotion and Management vs CA

2/2

Prepared by: Katrina S. Diploma 2

of the State, the public health and welfare and public morals. Police power concerns government

enactments which interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general

welfare or the common good. Because the Department Order enjoys a presumed validity, theburden falls upon the petitioners to prove that the ARB requirement does not enhance the public

welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. The welfare of Filipino performing artists,

particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of the said order to which the petitionerscould not counter with evidence.

The requirement of passing rigid written and practical exams before they are deemed fitto practice their trade does not tantamount to an unwarranted deprivation of a property right

under the due process clause. So long as professionals and other workers meet reasonable

regulatory standards no such deprivation exists.