“FAIRNESS and social justice demand that we give them all that they are due — as a Filipino seafarer who sacrificed and as a human being.”
A declaration by Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen in Castillon vs Magsaysay Mitsui OSK (G.R. No. 234711, March 02, 2020) that should be equally applied in the current issues hounding the pending Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers.
Leonen added: “The Court stood as a mute witness to the paltry amounts received — even for permanent and total disabilities — compared with the illness Filipino seafarers have to suffer or the deaths that their families have to endure.”
The “watered down” Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers will penalize seafarers rather than protect them as the contentious provision on the execution bond was reinserted despite issues on constitutionality and discrimination.
“The painful truth is this bill does not give Filipino seafarers any additional rights or benefits that they do not already enjoy by way of international agreements. On the contrary, this particular insertion even takes away a benefit that they already now enjoy,” according to Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III.
Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros described the fight to delete the bond provision as “arduous” because both Houses of Congress through the bicameral committee convened three times (December 6, 2023 then May 23 and July 31, 2024) just to restore the provision. The House contingent led the reinstatement of the said provision.
The Magna Carta was not signed into law by President Marcos Jr. on February 26, 2024 and was later withdrawn by the House of Representatives for review on some contentious issues, including provisions on disability claims and the inclusion of maritime education.
The debate on disability claims centered on the proposed provision that aims to amend the Labor Code, which will have adverse significant impact on the “immediately final and executory” nature of decisions issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
Under Section 59, the seafarer may move for the execution of the monetary award pending appeal upon posting of a sufficient bond for the disputed portion of the award. And if the seafarer ultimately prevails in the case, he will be reimbursed with the cost of putting up the bond.
Sweepingly linked with ambulance chasing, proponents stressed that such move is necessary to ensure the restitution of monetary awards in case the appropriate appellate court annuls or partially or totally reverses the monetary judgment award.
The House version contains the controversial escrow/execution bond provision while this was omitted in the Senate version.
The bicameral committee in the first report omitted the escrow but contained a provision on execution bond. The whole provision was deleted in the second report but was reinserted in the third report.
Gabriela’s Rep. Arlene Brosas urged President Marcos to veto the pending bill due to the “grossly anti-labor provision” because it incorrectly presumes that seafarers have the economic capacity — similar to their employers — to put up a bond.
Pimentel said the insertion seeks to treat Filipino seafarers less favorably than other Filipino workers as he described the bill was passed through “a very unusual and strange procedure.”
The provision violates the constitutional guarantee on equal protection. It will partake of the nature of class legislation because it singles out seafarer claims from other labor claims, both local and overseas. It is discriminatory against seafarers, as there lies no substantial distinction between the claims of a seafarer and any other laborer.
Hontiveros warned on using the Department of Migrant Workers’ (DMW) Agarang Kalinga at Saklolo para sa mga OFW na Nangangailangan (AKSYON) Fund as source of the bond, adding that public funds should not be used to help shipowners and manning agencies.
Hontiveros said a seafarer seeks payment of monetary benefits because of the fact that he is in financial distress due to his medical condition. Many are jobless, sick, disabled and infirm and thus could incur huge debts to sustain their medication, while others die before the decision by the Supreme Court is released.
Instead of saving his earnings for his medication, he will be forced to redirect them to the execution bond, jeopardizing further his economic well-being.
“This is clearly discriminatory if not unjust to our seafarers. Let us all be reminded that the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers is meant to protect the seafarers,” Pimentel said.
The pending Magna Carta should expand, and not limit, their rights as it must be the translation into reality of President Ramon Magsaysay’s wisdom: “He who has less in life should have more in law”.
***
Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the Seafarers’ Division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786./PN
