51. SALAZAR VS.

ACHACOSO

183 SCRA 145

FACTS: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed

with the POEA, charged petitioner Salazar with
illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez
sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA
regarding the complaint against him. On the same day, after
knowing that petitioner had no license to operate
a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas
Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to
petitioner. It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and
paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of
committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that petitioner
has (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of
Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas
employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited
under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of
the same code. A team was then tasked to implement the said
Order. The group, accompanied by media men and Mandaluyong
policemen, went to petitioners residence. They served the order
to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in. The team
confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter
requesting for the return of the seized properties, because she
was not given prior notice and hearing. The said Order violated
due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of
Rights, and the properties were confiscated against her will and
were done with unreasonable force and intimidation.

ISSUE: Whether or Not the Secretary of Labor can validly issue

warrants of search and seizure under Article 38 of
the Labor Code.
HELD: Under the new Constitution, . . . no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized. Mayors and prosecuting
officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure
and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The
Supreme Court held, We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor,
not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants.
Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To
that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of
the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect The
power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for
deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It (the power to order
arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases, like the one at
bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts.
Furthermore, the search and seizure order was in the nature of a
general warrant. The court held that the warrant is null and void,
because it must identify specifically the things to be seized.