Roldan, Rommel P.

1D LegRes Revalida question #10

An ordinance of the City of Manila requires every alien desiring to obtain employment of
whatever kind, including casual and part-time employment, in the city to secure an employment
permit from the City Mayor and to pay a work permit fee of P500. Is the ordinance valid?

CONSTITUTIONAL:
Yes, the ordinance is constitutional because:

Under ART. 1, SEC. 455, Paragraph (b) of the 1987 Constitution states that “for efficient,
effective, and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the city
and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the city mayor shall:
(2) Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to governance of the city and in the exercise
of the appropriate corporate powers provided for under Section 22 of this Code…”1

It is appropriate for the City Mayor to issue this ordinance that would make an alien
acquire an employment permit and pay the fee of the said permit because it would constitute as
an economic gain for the city of Manila to employ aliens or foreigners in the city. It would also
increase the revenue of the city and would help the economic progress and growth of the city.
The fees that are to be collected from the applications of foreign nationals would attribute to the
increase of the city’s funds and could be allocated for projects that would sustain the city of
Manila.

It also must be noted that under Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution, “Every local
government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.” It is fairly
appropriate to validly issue the ordinance since the local government has the constitutional right
to exercise this power because it is deemed necessary for the local government to furnish
employment permits to aliens who want to be employed in the city. It is also fitting for the
promotion of general welfare because in the succeeding sentence of this section states an
example for general welfare, i.e. enhance economic prosperity.

Another note on the ordinance being valid is that it exercises valid police power that is an
inherent power of the state. It 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, October 23, 1967, G.R. No. L-
24693). Under the ordinance of the City Mayor to impose fees for the application of employment
of aliens in the city of Manila, it is a protection or to promote the economic security of the people,
wherein the residents are assured that the alien employees are safe regarding to their economic
gain and that they do not overrule the Filipino citizens. (Ichong vs Hernandez, 101 Phil. 11155)

1
Also See REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 October 10,1991
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

No, the ordinance is invalid and unconstitutional because it does not satisfy the test for a valid
ordinance. An ordinance should be tested in order to be valid, and in the test there are 6
requisites:

The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has held that for an
ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to
enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the
following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must
not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may
regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.
(City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., 118127, April 12, 2005)

The ordinance fails the first requisite because it contravenes a statute which is in Sec. 40,
P.D. No. 442, May 1, 1974 which states:

“Article 40. Employment permit of non-resident aliens. Any alien seeking admission to the
Philippines for employment purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an
alien for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor.
The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after
a determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing
at the time of application to perform the services for which the alien is desired.
For an enterprise registered in preferred areas of investments, said employment permit may be
issued upon recommendation of the government agency charged with the supervision of said registered
enterprise.”

Hence, the ordinance is invalid because the City Mayor has no capacity or power to issue
an employment permit to the alien because in P.D. No. 442 it expressly states that the alien must
acquire the employment permit from the Department of Labor and Employment.

Also, the Department of Labor and Employment issued Department Order No. 186, Series
of 2017 in pursuance with the provisions of Articles 5, 40, 41 and 42 of PD 442, as amended, the
provisions of Rule XIV, Book 1 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, Section 17(5),
Chapter 4, Title VII of the Administrative Code of 1987.2 This Department Order under DOLE,
states the revised rules on the issuance of employment permits to foreign nationals, wherein
they have the sole capacity on furnishing employment permits to foreign nationals, not the City
of Manila.

2
http://www.ble.dole.gov.ph/downloads/issuances/DO%20186-
17%20Revised%20Rules%20For%20The%20Issuance%20Of%20Employment%20Permits%20To%20Foreign%20Nati
onals.pdf (Date accessed, December 3, 2019)