5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch government may exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with regardless of the existence of any law that supports such exercise. cannot be trumped by any other law. All laws must be read in light of Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity. or office of the the Constitution, The Constitution the Constitution. Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion. We are not convinced by the pleadings submitted by the parties that the situation has so changed so as to cause us to reverse binding precedent. Likewise, there are special reasons of judicial efficiency and economy that attend to these cases. The new law puts our overseas workers in the same vulnerable position as they were prior to Serrano. Failure to reiterate the very ratio decidendi of that case will result in the same untold economic hardships that our reading of the Constitution intended to avoid. Obviously, we cannot countenance added expenses for further litigation that will reduce their hard-earned wages as well as add to the indignity of having been deprived of the protection of our laws simply because our precedents have not been followed. There is no constitutional doctrine that causes injustice in the face of empty procedural niceties. Constitutional interpretation is complex, but it is never unreasonable. Thus, in a resolution[88] dated October 22, 2013, we ordered the parties and the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on the constitutionality of the reinstated clause in Republic Act No. 10022. In its comment,[89] petitioner argued that the clause was constitutional.[90] The legislators intended a balance between the employers’ and the employees’ rights by not unduly burdening the local recruitment agency.[91] Petitioner is also of the view that the clause was already declared as constitutional in Serrano.[92] The Office of the Solicitor General also argued that the clause was valid and constitutional.[93] However, since the parties never raised the issue of the constitutionality of the clause as reinstated in Republic Act No. 10022, its contention is that it is beyond judicial review.[94] On the other hand, respondent argued that the clause was unconstitutional because it infringed on workers’ right to contract.[95] We observe that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in Republic Act. No. 10022, violates the constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.[96] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57319 13/39