The temporary ban on overseas employment of doctors, nurses and other health care workers imposed by the Governing Board of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) on April 2, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic is constitutional.
However, the ban must be coupled with adequate compensation and other benefits to medical professionals and workers who volunteer to be in the frontlines against the viral menace.
The government must negotiate with the host countries to preserve the employment contracts of the affected medical professionals and workers during the effectivity of the ban by also taking into consideration, among others, the ongoing restrictions on air travel to the host destinations.
The rights to travel and non-impairment of contracts are not absolute and are subject to restrictions or limitations which the State may enforce in exercise of its police power.
Police power is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its people (Ermita Malate Hotel vs. City Mayor, July 31, 1967).
No less than the Constitution under Sec. 6 of Art. III on the Bill of Rights provides that “[n]either shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.”
In the exercise of its police power, the Congress enacted R.A. No. 10022, which amended the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, Sec. 5 of which, as amended, provides:
“Sec. 5. Termination or Ban on Deployment – Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 4 hereof (deployment of migrant workers), in pursuit of the national interest or when public welfare so requires, the POEA Governing Board, after consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, may, at any time, terminate or impose a ban on the deployment of migrant workers.”
The enforcement of the ban on foreign deployment of migrant workers has been duly delegated by the legislature under the established standards of national interest or public welfare to the POEA Governing Board.
With respect to the imposition of the ban, the Department of Foreign Affairs has to be merely consulted but it has no veto power over the decision to terminate or ban foreign employment.
The declaration of a public health emergency under Proclamation No. 922 dated March 8, 2020 and the depletion of the number of medical professionals and workers manning the frontlines against the COVID-19 pandemic further necessitate the ban.
In the case of Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon (G.R. No. 81958, June 30, 1988), the Supreme Court ruled that the deployment ban against domestic workers and females, despite limiting their right to travel, was a valid limitation on the ground of public safety.
The prohibition on the non-impairment of contracts admits exceptions in view of exigencies relative to public welfare like the termination or ban of foreign employment as provided for in Sec. 5 of the Migrant Workers Act.
All foreign contracts of employment are subject to the limitation or restriction provided for in Sec. 5.
In Philippine American Life Insurance Company vs. Auditor General (G. R. No. L-19255, January 18, 1968), it was ruled that:
“Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between the parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into the contracts as a postulate of the legal order.”
It was also held in this case that:
“The freedom of contract, under our system of government is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, morals, safety and welfare.”
In Goldenway Merchandising Corporation vs. Equitable PCI Bank (G.R. No. 195540, March 13, 2013), the High Court ruled that:
“Impairment is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract. There is an impairment if a subsequent law changes the terms of the contract between the parties, imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties.”
In the temporary ban on foreign employment of medical professionals and workers, there is no alteration or diminution of the terms and conditions of the concerned contracts of foreign employment to sustain a claim of illegal abridgement of contract.
Neither does the ban constitute involuntary servitude because medical professionals and workers are not forced to render service in the country but they are encouraged to volunteer with adequate compensation.
Moreover, the ban will also promote the safety of Filipino medical practitioners and workers from being infected by the novel coronavirus which has spread to many host countries.
EDCEL C. LAGMAN