6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly equally to present and future conditions, the classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee. In the case at bar, the challenged Department Order clearly applies to all performing artists and entertainers destined for jobs abroad. These orders, we stressed hereinbefore, further the Constitutional mandate requiring Government to protect our workforce, particularly those who may be prone to abuse and exploitation as they are beyond the physical reach of government regulatory agencies. The tragic incidents must somehow stop, but short of absolutely curtailing the right of these performers and entertainers to work abroad, the assailed measures enable our government to assume a measure of control. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision sought to be reviewed, petition is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. [1] EIAC, Res. No. 1. [2] Noble State Bank v. Haskel, 219 US 112 (1911). [3] Smith, Bell and Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 136 (1919). [4] 39 Phil 660, 708 (1919). [5] Id., at 708-709. [6] Source: National Statistics Office, 1992. [7] Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon 163 SCRA 386, 392 (1988). [8] Id. [9] Department Order No. 28 vests the EIAC with the following principal functions: a) recommend to the DOLE policies, plans and programs for the development of the entertainment industry, local and overseas, including but not limited to talents training and upgrading, employment standards and other internationally acceptable trade practices; b) promote ethical business standards and dignified workplaces; c) act as the coordinating body for all training programs and technical assistance to the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34037 7/8