G.R. No. 167614 8 of 33 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm In their Comment and Memorandum, respondents contend that the constitutional issue should not be entertained, for this was belatedly interposed by petitioner in his appeal before the CA, and not [40] at the earliest opportunity, which was when he filed an appeal before the NLRC. The Arguments of the Solicitor General [41] points out that as R.A. No. 8042 took effect on July 15, 1995, The Solicitor General (OSG) its provisions could not have impaired petitioner's 1998 employment contract. Rather, R.A. No. 8042 having preceded petitioner's contract, the provisions thereof are deemed part of the minimum terms of petitioner's employment, especially on the matter of money claims, as this was not stipulated upon by [42] the parties. Moreover, the OSG emphasizes that OFWs and local workers differ in terms of the nature of their employment, such that their rights to monetary benefits must necessarily be treated differently. The OSG enumerates the essential elements that distinguish OFWs from local workers: first, while local workers perform their jobs within Philippine territory, OFWs perform their jobs for foreign employers, over whom it is difficult for our courts to acquire jurisdiction, or against whom it is almost impossible to enforce judgment; and second, as held in Coyoca v. National Labor Relations [43] [44] Commission and Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission, OFWs are contractual employees who can never acquire regular employment status, unlike local workers who are or can become regular employees. Hence, the OSG posits that there are rights and privileges exclusive to local workers, but not available to OFWs; that these peculiarities make for a reasonable and valid basis for the differentiated treatment under the subject clause of the money claims of OFWs who are illegally dismissed. Thus, the provision does not violate the equal protection clause nor Section 18, [45] Article II of the Constitution. Lastly, the OSG defends the rationale behind the subject clause as a police power measure adopted to mitigate the solidary liability of placement agencies for this 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 migrant workers are properly deployed and are [46] employed under decent and humane conditions. The Court's Ruling The Court sustains petitioner on the first and second issues. 1/26/2016 3:06 PM