THE MAGNA Carta for Filipino seafarers failed to consider recommendation of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on the exclusion of labor dispute resolution provisions, particularly involving the execution bond.
“It’s anti-worker, impractical and inconsistent with the protection to labor clause,” thus said Department of Labor and Employment Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma in a letter dated March 5, 2024 addressed to Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin as a comment on the Draft Bicameral Report of the Magna Carta.
Under the latest version of the bill’s Section 59, the seafarer may move for the execution of the disputed portion of the monetary award pending appeal upon posting of a sufficient bond. And if the seafarer ultimately prevails in the case, he will be reimbursed with the cost of putting up the bond.
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 on the execution bond. The House contingent led the reinstatement of the said provision.
The bicameral committee in the first report omitted the escrow but retained a provision on execution bond. The whole provision was deleted in the second report but was reinserted in the third report.
Laguesma said that the proposed remedy favors employers and is totally misplaced in a magna carta for seafarers.
He stressed that the requirement that the judgement obligee (which is the worker) should post a bond for the execution of awards under items (d) and (e) places an undue burden on the worker who has no means to put up such bond.
Laguesma likewise underscored that it is inconsistent with the equal protection clause under the Philippine Constitution.
While the Supreme Court has ruled that overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) constitute a distinct class needing special protection, the validity of the distinction has been founded on the nature of their employment and the peculiar circumstances that they face while working abroad.
Laguesma added that there has been no recognized valid basis for distinction in terms of how cases arising from the employment of OFWs are processed by local tribunals. The proposed provision not only makes a distinction between OFWs and local workers. It also effectively makes a distinction between sea-based and land-based OFWs.
This can raise a “suspect classification” as it is doubtful if simply being an overseas seafarer—or a domestic seafarer for that matter—can be a substantive and valid basis to justify a differentiated treatment in the resolution and processing of cases, particularly at the execution stage.
Laguesma further noted that it undermines the Constitutional requirement for a complete decision. The provision proposes that a decision should differentiate between “disputed” from “undisputed” claims. But a decision should completely resolve all issues in the dispute. This means that a decision should not differentiate between disputed claims and undisputed claims. Where the claim is disputed, the agency with jurisdiction is required to resolve the dispute and put an end to it.
In any case, if the employer is willing to concede to an “undisputed” claim, nothing prevents it from complying with the decision to the extent of this amount, without losing its right to partially appeal the decision on the “disputed” claim.
Laguesma also stressed that the provision undermines the Constitutional independence of the courts to prescribe rules of procedure over cases that may be pending before the courts.
The bill effectively amends 234 (Mandatory Conciliation and Endorsement of Cases), 229 (Appeal) and 230 (Execution of Decisions, Orders, or Awards) of the Labor Code.
Laguesma explained that this appears to be inconsistent with the single-subject rule in the Constitution as the proposed provision is not at all mentioned in the title of the revised bill.
Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that every bill shall embrace only one subject, which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
While mindful of the plenary nature of the legislative power that should not be unnecessarily impeded, the provisions pertain to subjects which are distinct from the rights of seafarers and are not carried in the title of the bill.
Dole also noted that the provision on the determination of disability grading may no longer be necessary in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bunayog v. Foscon, GR 253480, 25 April 2023, which provides definitive guidance on the matter.
***
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 0917-5025808 or 0908-8665786./PN
