Practice question
After centralization, an employer receives an order revoking its foreign employee’s AEP. It files a timely motion for reconsideration with the Director of the DOLE Legal Service. The employer claims that every reference to a regional director must instead mean the BLE Director, even for this motion, and that revocation remains unexecutable after the motion is denied. Which conclusion is correct?
- Both claims are correct
- Only the claim concerning the BLE Director is correct
- Only the claim concerning continued non-execution after denial is correct
- Both claims are incorrect: the motion follows the Legal Service route and revocation is immediately executory upon denial
- The motion must instead be decided by the local PESO
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html — Labor Code, Articles 40–41.
- https://www.ble.dole.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Department-Order-248-25-New-Rules-and-Regulations-on-the-Employment-of-Foreign-Nationals-in-the-Philippines.pdf — DO 248-25, alien employment framework.
- https://dole.gov.ph/php_assets/uploads/2025/06/Department-Order-248A-25-Supplemental-Guidelines-Clarifying-and-Amending-Provisions-of-DOLE-DO-248-25.pdf — DO 248-A-25, section 1, amendment to Rule II section 1(a).
- https://dole.gov.ph/php_assets/uploads/2026/06/DO-248B-26-Centralizing-the-Filing-Processing-Evaluation-Approval-Issuance-Release-Adjudication-and-Enforcement-Functions-Relating-to-AEPs-and-Amending-Relevant-Provisions-of-DOs-248-248A-25.pdf — DO 248-B-26, issued June 11, 2026, sections 2–4, 6, and 12.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.