Topic: Warrat of Arrest HORTENCIA SALAZAR vs. HON. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in is capacit!

as A"#inistrator of t e $OEA, an" %ERDIE MAR&'EZ ().R. No. *+,+-. Marc +., +//-.0 $onente: SARMIENTO, J.: Nat1re: This is a suit for prohibition against the Closure and Seizure Order No. 1 !" issued b# the $OEA. %acts: Rosalie Tesoro of $asa# Cit# filed a s%orn state&ent %ith the $OEA against her for&er &anager 'orten(ia Salazar for %ithholding the her $ECC Card. $ubli( respondent Att#. )erdinand Mar*uez sent petitioner a telegra& dire(ting hi& to appear to the $OEA regarding the (o&plaint against hi&. On the sa&e da#, after +no%ing that petitioner had no li(ense to operate a re(ruit&ent agen(#, publi( respondent Ad&inistrator To&as A(ha(oso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1 !" to petitioner. It %as stated in the said order that there %ill a seizure of the do(u&ents and paraphernalia being used or intended to beused as the &eans of (o&&itting illegal re(ruit&ent, it ha,ing ,erified that petitioner has -1. No,alid li(ense or authorit# fro& the /epart&ent of 0abor and E&plo#&ent to re(ruit and deplo#%or+ers for o,erseas e&plo#&ent1 - . Co&&itted2are (o&&itting a(ts prohibited under Arti(le 34 of the Ne% 0abor Code in relation to Arti(le 35 of the sa&e (ode. A tea& %as then tas+ed toi&ple&ent the said Order. The group, a((o&panied b# &edia&en and Mandalu#ong poli(e&en,%ent to petitioner6s residen(e. The# ser,ed the order to a (ertain Mrs. )or a Salazar, %ho let the& in. The tea& (onfis(ated assorted (ostu&es. $etitioner filed %ith $OEA a letter re*uesting for the return of the seized properties, be(ause she %as not gi,en prior noti(e and hearing. $etitioner alleged that the said Order ,iolated her right to due pro(ess. She also alleged that it ,iolated se( of the 7ill of Rights, and the properties %ere (onfis(ated against her %ill and %ere done %ith unreasonable for(e and inti&idation. $etitioner filed this suit for prohibition. Although the a(ts sought to be barred are alread# fait accompli, thereb# &a+ing prohibition too late, the (ourt (onsidered the petition as one for certiorari in ,ie% of the gra,e publi( interest in,ol,ed. Iss1e: 8hether or not the $OEA (an ,alidl# issue %arrants of sear(h and seizure or arrest under Arti(le 35 of the 0abor Code. R12in3: NO. Arti(le 35 of the 0abor Code is un(onstitutional and of no for(e and effe(t. 'en(e, $OEA (annot ,alidl# issue %arrants of sear(h and seizure or arrest under Arti(le 35 of the 0abor Code. 9nder the ne% Constitution it is onl# a :udge %ho &a# issue %arrants of sear(h and arrest. In one (ase, it %as de(lared that &a#ors &a# not e;er(ise this po%er neither &a# it be done b# a &ere prose(uting bod#. The Closure and Seizure Order %as based on Arti(le35 of the 0abor Code %hi(h gi,es the Minister of 0abor and E&plo#&ent or his dul# authorized representati,es shall ha,e the po%er to (ause the arrest and detention of su(h non<li(ensee or non<holder of authorit# . 'o%e,er, the Supre&e Court de(lared Arti(le 35, paragraph -(., of the 0abor Code, un(onstitutional and of no for(e and effe(t and reiterated that the Se(retar# of 0abor, not being a :udge, &a# no longer issue sear(h or arrest %arrants. 'en(e, the authorities &ust gothrough the :udi(ial pro(ess. The po%er of the $resident to order the arrestof aliens for deportation is, ob,iousl#, e;(eptional. It -the po%er to order arrests. (annot be &adeto e;tend to other (ases, li+e the one at bar. 9nder the Constitution, it is the sole do&ain of the(ourts.= )urther&ore, the sear(h and seizure order in the present (ase %as in the nature of a general %arrant. The (ourt held that the %arrant is null and ,oid, be(ause it &ust identif# spe(ifi(all# the things to beseized.

Dispositive $ortion: 8'ERE)ORE, the petition is >RANTE/. Arti(le 35, paragraph -(. of the 0abor Code is de(lared 9NCONSTIT9TIONA0 and null and ,oid. The respondents are OR/ERE/ to return all &aterials seized as a result of the i&ple&entation of Sear(h and Seizure Order No. 1 !". No (osts. SO OR/ERE/.