G.R. No. 167614 22 of 33 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm [124] [125] in the Constitution and calibrated by history. It is akin to the paramount interest of the state for which some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in safeguarding health or [126] maintaining medical standards, or in maintaining access to information on matters of public [127] concern. In the present case, the Court dug deep into the records but found no compelling state interest that the subject clause may possibly serve. The OSG defends the subject clause as a police power measure designed to protect the employment of Filipino seafarers overseas x x x. By limiting the liability to three months [sic], Filipino seafarers have better chance of getting hired by foreign employers. The limitation also protects the interest of local placement agencies, which otherwise may be made to shoulder millions of pesos in [128] termination pay. The OSG explained further: Often, placement agencies, their liability being solidary, shoulder the payment of money claims in the event that jurisdiction over the foreign employer is not acquired by the court or if the foreign employer reneges on its obligation. Hence, placement agencies that are in good faith and which fulfill their obligations are unnecessarily penalized for the acts of the foreign employer. To protect them and to promote their continued helpful contribution in deploying Filipino migrant workers, liability for money are reduced under Section 10 of RA 8042. This measure redounds to the benefit of the migrant workers whose welfare the government seeks to promote. The survival of legitimate placement agencies helps [assure] the government that [129] migrant workers are properly deployed and are employed under decent and humane conditions. (Emphasis supplied) However, nowhere in the Comment or Memorandum does the OSG cite the source of its perception of the state interest sought to be served by the subject clause. The OSG locates the purpose of R.A. No. 8042 in the speech of Rep. Bonifacio Gallego in [130] sponsorship of House Bill No. 14314 (HB 14314), from which the law originated; but the speech makes no reference to the underlying reason for the adoption of the subject clause. That is only natural for none of the 29 provisions in HB 14314 resembles the subject clause. On the other hand, Senate Bill No. 2077 (SB 2077) contains a provision on money claims, to wit: 1/26/2016 3:06 PM