The Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers

Stakeholders has been campaigning for the passage of the Magna Carta for Filipino seafarers given the fact thatthe  Philippines  is considered as one of  the major supplier of maritime labor globally. 

The first version of the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers was the by-product of the National Seafarers Conference in 2002 held at the Manila Hotel organized by the Apostleship of the Seas (AoS) in coordination with the Office of Senator Ramon Magsaysay, Jr.

Years later, several versions were filed by  legislators that considered  legal developments both locally and internationally. This include   the  Maritime Labour Convention of 2006  (MLC2006) that  sets out seafarers’ rights to decent conditions of work.  and embodies all up-to-date standards  of existing international maritime labour Conventions and Recommendations. MLC 2006 is also called Seafarers’ Bill of Rights and   the fourth pillar of international maritime law.

 In the Senate, there are pending   bills  on Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers proposed by Senator Sonny Angara (S.B.No.314) , Senator Loren Legarda (S.B.N0.244) and Senator J,V, Ejercito (S.B.No,904)  which aim to institute mechanisms to protect our country's seafarers' rights, provide them compulsory benefits, and enforce standards set by international laws.

On the other hand,  Senate Bill No. 429 by Senator Legarda   and Senate Bill No. 881 by Senator Grace Poe  seek the creation of a   centralized agency   directly involved in promoting assistance to all seafarers.

On July 2017, the Lower House has passed on third and final reading with  236-0 votes House Bill No. 5685 or the Magna Carta for Filipino seafarers, which essentially  consolidated  the different bills filed by  Representatives  Emmeline Aglipay-Villar, Jesulito Manalo,  Bellaflor Angara-Castillo, Karlo Alexei Nograles,  Jericho Jonas Nograles, Tomasito Villarin; and  Democrito Mendoza.

The proponents acknowledge that seafarers deal with circumstances very different from mainstream or land-based Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and other sectors within the labor force. However, existing labor laws and social legislation, particularly the Overseas Filipinos and Migrant Workers’ Act of 1996 (RA 8042) do not adequately address the needs of seafarers.

This maritime Magna Carta, which in essence simply enshrines MLC2006  into Philippine law, states that seafarers have the right to safe and secure workplace that complies with safety standards; decent working and living conditions on board a ship; medical care, welfare measures and other forms of health and social protection; and fair terms and conditions of employment including salary commensurate to their rank, minimum number of working hours, and rest periods consistent with Philippine or international maritime conventions.

The bill also provides for seafarers’ rights to engage in collective bargaining; access to educational advancement and training at reasonable and affordable costs; relevant information, including the terms and conditions of employment and company policies affecting seafarers. It protects them against discrimination based on race, sex, religion and political opinion and provides for free legal representation for victims of violations who cannot afford legal representation

The original Magna Carta  is one of the most famous documents in the world.  It is short for   Magna Carta Libertatum, the Medieval Latin for “the Great Charter of the Liberties.”

Originally issued by King John of England  as a practical solution to the political crisis he faced in 1215, Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law. It dealt with specific grievances relating to his rule.

Some of Magna Carta’s core principles are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents around the world, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

Lord Alfred Thompson Denning, a famous English lawyer and judge, described  it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot."

If passed into law, the Magna Carta for Filipino seafarers  will be applied to those engaged, employed or working on board Philippines-registered ships operating domestically or internationally, as well as those on board foreign-registered ships.

 (Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)

Seafarers' claims to be delayed by placing awards in Escrow

 Manning agencies are pushing for the inclusion of  an escrow provision in the proposed Magna Carta which  is a mere dilatory tactic in the execution of the seafarers’  monetary awards.

 The provision  in essence aimed to amend the labor code that will have significant impact on labor claims governing the immediately “final and executory” nature of decisions issued by National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).  

The manning agencies resurrected what ANGKLA Partylist  earlier  filed  as House Bill  No. 5430 on February 2015 during the 16^th Congress   wherein the proceeds of execution shall be deposited in an escrow account with an escrow agent designated by the NLRC  or the NCMB.    

The seafarer  will wait for longer years before they receive the NLRC/NCMB  award , mostly  for cases involving monetary claims for  disability and death benefits, illegal dismissal as well as unpaid or underpayment of salaries and wages. 

The manning agencies echoed ANGKLA’s rationale for the earlier Bill to ensure the restitution of monetary awards in case the appropriate appellate court annuls or partially or totally reverses the monetary judgment award.

The proceeds shall remain in escrow until such time the finality of the decision issued by the appropriate appellate court is obtained..

The proceeds shall only be released after issuance of an entry of judgment by the appropriate appellate court and upon issuance by the NLRC or the NCMB, after motion of the proper party, of an order authorizing the release of proceeds of execution.

ANGKLA pointed out that the amendment is proper as the problem of the immediately “final and executory” nature of decisions gains greater relevance considering the following factors: (a) the complainant will insist on the execution of the NLRC or NCMB decision despite the appeal; (b) even if the appellate courts overturn or modify the NLRC or NCMB decision, there is little hope of recovering anything through restitution; (c) more legal costs and expenses will be incurred in pursuing the case through the appellate courts and in applying for restitution of the judgment award. 

Every labor dispute is a David and Goliath situation  as it  involves two opposing parties:  the worker on one side and the management on the other.  

Constantly exposed to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant harsh weather conditions, the risks of his getting killed, injured or ill are high. 

When he sustains injury, illness or lose his life, seldom does he receive full compensation provided under the law because his employer does not hesitate to harness its immense resources to limit its liability. 

Labor litigation takes years before it reaches the Supreme Court.

 In cases of seafarers with medical conditions, some incur huge debts to sustain their medication while others die before the decision by the Supreme Court is released. 

Due to the longer years that they have to wait, without any leverage in prosecuting his monetary claims, chances are, the seafarer bows to the demand of his employer to either drop his claim or accept a small settlement. 

The scenario under said provision  will be analogous to situations described by the  Supreme Court where "the judgment becomes illusory. (Corona v. CA, ,343 SCRA 512) 

The Supreme Court lamented that   the claimant "has grown old with the case. He fears he may no longer be in this world when the case is finally decided." (Borja vs.  CA, 196 SCRA 847)  The prevailing party might  be unable to enjoy  the judgment award  after the lapse of time, considering the tactics of the adverse party who may have no recourse but to delay. (Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. v. PTA,341 SCRA 90)

In cases of execution pending appeal, the Supreme Court underscored that " the law itself has laid down a compassionate policy which, once more, vivifies and enhances the provisions of the 1987 Constitution on labor and the working man.  These duties and responsibilities of the State are imposed not so much to express sympathy for the workingman as to forcefully and meaningfully underscore labor as a primary social and economic force, which the Constitution also expressly affirms with equal intensity. Labor is an indispensable partner for the nation's progress and stability" ( Aris Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 246) 

If the provision  that aims to delay in execution will be included, the proposed  Magna Carta   becomes a tool of oppression and inequity to the prejudice of  the seafarer.

In the end, such legislative act runs in contradiction to the constitutional provision  that says "the State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare." (Art. II, Sec. 18, Constitution, 1987.). 

 (Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)

Unconstitutionality of escrow provision in the Magna Carta

The escrow provision in the proposed Magna Carta for Filipino seafarers violates the constitutional guarantee on equal protection.

The Joint  Manning Group  is pushing for the inclusion of an escrow provision  which is a mere dilatory tactic in the execution of the seafarers’ monetary awards.

The provision in essence aimed to amend the labor code that will have significant impact on labor claims governing the immediately “final and executory” nature of decisions issued by National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).  

The manning agencies echoed ANGKLA’s rationale for an earlier Bill to ensure the restitution of monetary awards in case the appropriate appellate court annuls or partially or totally reverses the monetary judgment award.

 There is an invalid classification that runs counter to  the Constitutional provision  which  provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” ( Article II, Section 1)

 The guarantee of this constitutional right of equal protection shall mean that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed

Class legislation is such legislation which denies rights to one which are accorded to others, or inflicts upon one individual a more severe penalty than is imposed upon another in like case offending. (Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131719, May 25, 2004)

The Supreme Court elucidated upon the concept of equal protection of the laws in the caseof Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, (197 Phil. 407 [1982]):

"xxx that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances which, if not identical, are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion, whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest.”

Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the subjects of legislation. If the classification is reasonable, the law may operate only on some and not all of the people without violating the equal protection clause. The classification must, as an indispensable requisite, not be arbitrary.

To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements :  (1) It must be based on substantial distinctions; (2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only and (4) It must apply equally to all members of the class.(People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939),

If passed into law with said provision, the Magna Carta will partake of the nature of class legislation because it  singles out seafarer claims from other labor claims, both local and overseas.

The requirement that classification must be based on substantial distinctions has not been complied with.  There lies no substantial distinction between the claims a seafarer and any other laborers.

The provision makes a rash generalization that cases filed by lawyers in the seafaring practice are merely after financial gain, and not to protect the seafarer’s rights, all based on an unsubstantiated and likewise unfair generalization to the effect that all lawyers in the seafaring practice are ambulance chasers.

In the same vein, the provision should highlight the fact that the act of ambulance chasing transcends other fields of practice, and is not solely found in the seafaring practice.

          The provision is unduly oppressive, unreasonable, and is repugnant to the Constitution. It undermines the mandate of the Constitution to protect the rights of overseas workers and to promote their welfare when it deprive such seafarers an avenue to receive the fruits of his legal battle. 

The proposed legislation is the reverse of the constitutional mandate and the declared policies of RA No. 8042, as amended by R.A. 100022 as  it unreasonably downplays the seafarers' rights guaranteed by the constitution instead of protecting the rights and promoting their  welfare. 

In what appears to be a virtuous objective of protecting Filipino seafarers, the inclusion of said escrow provision will go beyond such benevolent objective at the expense of curtailing their rights. 

(Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)