Facts: Petitioner, Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc.

, is engaged
principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female of overseas employment. It challenges the constitutional validity of Dept. rder !o. " #"$$%& of D 'E entitled ()uidelines )overning the *emporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and +ousehold ,orkers.- It claims that such order is a discrimination against males and females. *he rder does not apply to all Filipino workers .ut only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills, and that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also .eing an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. Further, P/SEI invokes Sec 0 of /rt "0 of the 1onstitution, providing for worker participation in policy and decision2making processes affecting their rights and .enefits as may .e provided .y law. *hereafter the Solicitor )eneral on .ehalf of D 'E su.mitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving the police power of the State and informed the court that the respondent have lifted the deployment .an in some states where there exists .ilateral agreement with the Philippines and existing mechanism providing for sufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers.

Issue: ,hether or not there has .een a valid classification in the challenged
Department rder !o. ".

Held: S1 in dismissing the petition ruled that there has .een valid classification,
the Filipino female domestics working a.road were in a class .y themselves, .ecause of the special risk to which their class was exposed. *here is no 3uestion that rder !o." applies only to female contract workers .ut it does not there.y make an undue discrimination .etween sexes. It is well settled hat e3uality .efore the law under the constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of classification, provided that4 ". 5. 0. 6. Such classification rests on su.stantial distinctions *hat they are germane to the purpose of the law *hey are not confined to existing conditions *hey apply e3ually to al mem.ers of the same class

In the case at .ar, the classifications made, rest on su.stantial distinctions. Dept. rder !o. " does not impair the right to travel. *he conse3uence of the deployment .an has on the right to travel does not impair the right, as the right to travel is su.7ects among other things, to the re3uirements of (pu.lic safety- as may .e provided .y law. Deployment .an of female domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power. Police power as .een defined as the state authority to enact

legislation that may interfere with personal li.erty or property in order to promote general welfare. !either is there merit in the contention that Department rder !o. " constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the la.or code vest the D 'E with rule making powers.