Changing of the guards in seafarer’s cause

 With two seats as party-list representatives ,  the  major challenge of  MARINO   is to confront the questions raised on the qualification  of its first three   nominees who are not seafarers.

The results of the recent  party-list election  saw  the changing of the guards for the Filipino seafaring industry  as  Marino  replaced  incumbent Angkla.

In previous elections, several sea-based groups  attempted to gain slots in  Congress through the party-list system. 

Two parties run twice but failed to reach the required votes:  Maritime Party  in 2001 and 2004 while  Seaman’s Party run  in 2004 and 2007.

In 2010, three parties campaigned but also failed: Adhikaing Alay ng Marino sa Sambayanan (ALON)  with 49,893 votes , Ang Kapisanan ng mga Seaman (AKSI) with  26,805 votes, and United Filipino Seafarers (UFS)   with  6,121 votes.  

Angkla entered the political scene in 2013 competing with another group, Association of Marine Officer and Ratings (Amor Seaman). DIWA also carried the seafarers’ issues.  Angkla , won a seat ranking 26^th with  360,138 votes while  Amor  lost ranking  111^th for 40,849 votes. 

The 2016  election witnessed again  the race  between Angkla and Amor. As an incumbent, Angkla retained its seat but   dropped to 32^nd  place with 337, 245  votes which is 22,893 votes lower than that in 2013.  Marino made a debut  ranking 79^th place with 102,430 votes.  Amor ranked    87^th place with 68,226 votes.  

During this year’s midterm election, Angkla’s popularity continued to slide  down after occupying  the  53^rd slot  with  179,531 votes.  This is lower by 157,714 votes in 2016. As a consequence,  Angkla  came short of almost 12,000 votes to retain its  seat in Congress for a third term.

The problem besetting the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for seafarers affected Angkla’s candidacy. Seafarers complained that the process for obtaining and renewing their license became more difficult when the functions of Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) were transferred to the Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) by virtue of Angkla’s R.A. 10635.  MARINA was designated as the Single Maritime Administration to implement the  STCW.

Angkla’s decline could likewise  be attributed to the impression that it   prioritize   business matters rather than the basic seafarers’ issues. As Angkla was born in the boardroom with corporate genes, it    is heavily supported by the groups of manning agencies as well as shipowners.

It echoed the manning agencies in depicting  lawyers assisting seafarers for their legal claims as ambulance chasers when it authored  R. A.  No. 10706 (Seafarers Protection Act).

It even filed H.B. No. 5430 on February 2015  aimed to delay the execution of  NLRC/NCMB award  for cases involving monetary claims.

The  negative perception on  Angkla led to the shift of  seafarers’ support to Marino for this year’s election.

Marino  waves a Five-Point priority: cadet scholarships, family centers, trainings, free legal services and decentralization.

Despite  the fact that its  first  three  nominees are not seafarers, Marino placed seventh in ranking for its 677,378 votes.  It is  backed by big-time Davao-based businesses  and has  close ties with the Dutertes.  

Several groups have earlier  called for the repeal or amendment of the party-list law as political dynasties and businessmen have “hijacked” the system, supposed to be a platform for representation of marginalized sectors. The rosters of party-list representatives in previous Congresses had been hit for being recycled lists of people already in power and those with business interest.

Poll watchdog Kontra Daya  earlier raised red flags on party-list groups that have nominees that do not belong to the marginalized sectors they are supposed to represent.  Its    true intent   should be upheld  so that “only those that champion the marginalized and under-represented would emerge victorious”.

It is the group  as a whole that should be  evaluated  but  it cannot be denied that the identity of the nominees remains a significant reference for voters. Oftentimes, a party-list is voted based on political ads without actually knowing it or its platform.

Preliminary  reports noted  that seafarer deployment hit  337,502 in 2018 with remittance reaching US$6,139,512,000.

As the incoming congressmen are not seafarers, MARINO must prove that it is worthy of the Filipino  seafarers’   vote as their party-list representatives  that will genuinely protect their interest and not that of capital  to the prejudice of their labor rights. Otherwise, they will face the   2022 election with a bitter pill and suffer the same fate of Angkla.

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

The party-list system and the seafarers’ votes

The votes of the  Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), both landbased and seabased, are now being courted by groups aiming political seats through the party-list representation.

Around 134 groups will vie for 59 seats allotted for the party list in the House of Representatives

Party-list representation utilize the tendency for proportional representation systems to favor single-issue parties, and applies that tendency to allow underrepresented sectors to represent themselves in the law-making process.

The party-lists system was introduced in the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 7941 (the Party-List Law) to provide a balance for locality-based lawmakers, who are almost always elected on the basis of their popularity and the money that they release. The Constitution allots 20% Lower House membership from Partylist nominees, maximum at three nominees each, dependent on votes they gather nationwide. 

The Overseas Absentee Voting Act was passed in 2003, allowing Filipinos overseas to vote for who they want to be president, vice-president, senators, and party-list representatives.

POEA 2017  data shows that out of the 1,992,746 deployed  OFWs,   1,614,674 are landbased while 378,072 are seabased. In terms of remittances, the seabased sector sent home US$6,139,512.00 while the land based sector gave US$22,803,603,000.00.

Due to their absence during the election period, seafarers, who are registered overseas voters, may cast their ballots  60 days before the day of elections through two specialized modes:  personal voting or, in case of postal voting, in any post with international seaports as identified and recommended by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Seafarers may vote at any post, specifically Philippine embassies, consulates, foreign service establishments and other Philippine government agencies maintaining offices abroad, e.g., the Philippine Overseas Labor Offices (POLO).

In personal voting, seafarers voting shall be conducted in the designated posts.

In postal voting, ballots for seafarers shall be distributed proportionately among posts with identified international seaports. These ballots shall be in the custody of the post for the entire voting period.  The seafarer shall personally claim the mailing packet at the post, accomplish the official ballot contained in a mailing packet; and submit the accomplished ballot which shall then be  disposed in accordance with the procedures on postal voting.

COMELEC records show that seafarers who have registered to be OAVs number 43,033 as of 2019. This is less than 2016’s 49,339. The most seafaring OAVs are from Europe (22,433), followed by North and Latin America (10,468), Asia Pacific (7,662), and the Middle East and Africa (2,470).

But the strength of the seafarers’ votes are essentially felt through  their families residing in the Philippines.

For the seafaring sector, two party-list groups are campaigning for this year’s mid-term election.

 MARINO Partylist was  formed in 2014 by seafarers and stakeholders from the maritime community mostly in Mindanao. They are pursuing advocacies that aims to make significant and meaningful changes and reforms in the maritime industry.

 On the other hand, ANGKLA was  founded in 2011 and won for 2 consecutive terms in 2013 and 2016.

A news report noted that ANGKLA prioritizes business matters; MARINO appeals for seafarers (but backed by big-time business).

Several groups have called for the repeal or the amendment of the party-list law as political dynasties have "hijacked" the system, supposed to be a platform for representation of marginalized sectors. The rosters of party-list representatives in previous Congresses had been hit for being recycled lists of people already in power.

A study noted that at least 49 party-list nominees in the upcoming midterm elections are part of a political dynasty or families that have more than one member elected to a public post. If their parties garner enough votes, the nominees could occupy 83 percent of the 59 party-list seats in the House of Representatives

(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)

Labor/ Seafarers' claims to be delayed by ANGKLA bill placing NLRC/NCMB awards in Escrow

An anti-labor/seafarer bill might be refiled by ANGKLA Partylist during the next Congress if it will be reelected in office, a bill that  is clearly a mere dilatory tactic to stop the labor/  seafarers   from getting what is rightfully due them.

With  House Bill  No. 5430, the worker, or seafarer in this case,  will wait for longer years before they receive the award by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), mostly  for cases involving monetary claims involving disability and death benefits, illegal dismissal as well as unpaid or underpayment of salaries and wages. 

Through HB 5430, ANGKLA  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 NLRC/NCMB.  

ANGKLA proposes that to ensure the restitution of monetary awards in case the appropriate appellate court annuls or partially or totally reverses the monetary judgment, the proceeds of execution shall be deposited in an escrow account with an escrow agent designated by the NLRC  or the NCMB. 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. The order authorizing the release of the amount deposited in escrow shall be deemed final.

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 involves two opposing parties:  the worker on one side and the management on the other.  And this bill, definitely, is not in favor of labor, proposed by a partylist that projects itself as a protector of seafarers' interest, and labor as a whole. It is obviously a bill that seeks to protect more the respondent companies rather than the seafarers' themselves. 

Away from his family and working on board vessels sailing non-stop for weeks or months the world’s oceans, he is mentally and emotionally stressed. Constantly exposed to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant weather changes of extreme hot and cold as the ships cross ocean boundaries, not to mention harsh weather conditions, the risks of his getting killed, injured or ill are high. As if working under these difficult conditions are not enough, 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. 

 In most instances, workers run after benefits that are denied to them. Labor litigation takes years before it reaches the supreme court. In most cases, the elevation of the records alone from the NLRC/NCMB to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court will take several years. The proceedings in the appellate court will entail further delay.  In cases of seafarers with medical conditions, some incur huge debts to sustain their medication. Others die before the decision by the Supreme Court is released. 

The scenario envisioned by ANGKLA will be analogous to situations described by the the Supreme Court where "the judgment becomes illusory.."Corona International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,343 SCRA 512)  In one instance, 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.  Court of Appeals, 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. Philippine Tourism Authority,341 SCRA 90; Yasuda v. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA 385)

The reason is simple. An application for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A mere continuance or postponement of a scheduled hearing, for instance, or an inaction on the part of the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of the writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by  the labor code (Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v.  NLRC, 280 SCRA 806, 816.)

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 (Phil.) Inc. vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 246) 

In essence, ANGKLA has consistently echoed the arguments posed by the manning agencies that "labor cases pose a threat to international employment of  Filipino seafarers". Such issue was already touched upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Vir-Jen Shipping vs. NLRC  (210 Phil  482), in the following manner:  

"This is not the first time and it will not be the last where the threat of unemployment and loss of jobs would be used to argue against the interests of labor; where efforts by workingmen to better their terms of employment would be characterized as prejudicing the interests of labor as a whole. xxxx The same arguments have greeted every major advance in the rights of the workingman. And they have invariably been proved unfounded and false. Xxx Unionism, employers' liability acts, minimum wages, workmen's compensation, social security and collective bargaining to name a few were all initially opposed by employers and even well meaning leaders of government and society as "killing the hen or goose which lays the golden eggs." The claims of workingmen were described as outrageously injurious not only to the employer but more so to the employees themselves before these claims or demands were established by law and jurisprudence as "rights" and before these were proved beneficial to management, labor, and the nation as a whole beyond reasonable doubt. xxx  If any minor advantages given to Filipino seamen may somehow cut into the profits of local manning agencies and foreign shipowners, that is not sufficient reason why the NSB or the NLRC should not stand by the former instead of listening to unsubstantiated fears that they would be killing the hen which lays the golden eggs."

In the proposed bill that aims to delay in execution, it  becomes a tool of oppression and inequity to the prejudice of labor, and the seafarer to be specific. Due to the longer years that they have to wait, without any leverage in prosecuting his monetary claims, chances are, the employee/ seafarer bows to the demand of his employer to either drop his claim or accept a small settlement. 

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.).