Filipino seafarers without a current contract, even if possessing a valid Seafarer’s Record Book (SRB) and Seafarer’s Identity Document (SID), are not considered seafarers under the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers.
President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. signed last September 23, 2024 into law the Magna Carta.
Under Section 6 (Definition of Terms), an “overseas seafarer” refers to a seafarer who has been engaged, employed, or who works in any capacity on board a ship or vessel plying international waters, whether Philippine-registered or foreign-registered.
It added that an overseas seafarer is deemed “engaged” as such if he/she has signed a valid employment contract and is already at the point of hire for his/her departure.
The same phrases appeared in the Section 4 (Coverage) section, which states, “This Act shall cover Filipino seafarers who are engaged, employed, or who work in any capacity onboard a ship or vessel plying international waters, whether Philippine-registered or foreign-registered. This Act shall likewise include Filipino cadets in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIII (Education and Training of Seafarers and Cadets). This Act shall not cover Filipino seafarers on board the following categories of ships: (a) Warships and naval auxiliaries; (b) Government ships not engaged in commercial operations; (c) Ships of traditional build, as may be defined under existing rules and regulations; and (d) Fishing vessels.
During the deliberation of Magna Carta version at the Senate, Senator Risa Hontiveros proposed that the phrase “to be engaged” should be added in the coverage and definition sections.
She argued that the law should also cover those “to be employed/engaged” as not all seafarers are actively employed all the time.
There are those who are in between contracts, still applying for work, undergoing training, recently repatriated due to contract termination or other causes, or are simply on vacation.
“To be employed” is used under the Amended Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act (AMWA) or R.A. No. 10022 in defining an “Overseas Filipino worker,” including seafarers.
Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the subje cts 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 vs. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939).
The law must not be limited to existing conditions only and it must apply equally to all members of the class. The class refers to all seafarers, whether employed or not.
In fact, several provisions intend to include even those not “engaged, employed, or working.” The Magna Carta is less effective due to the non-inclusion of those “to be engaged.”
These include sections on (a) Right to Self-Organization, and to Collective Bargaining (Section 8); (b) Right to Educational Advancement and Training at Reasonable and Affordable Costs (Section 9); (c) Right to Information (Section 10); (d) Right to Consultation (Section 13); (e) Right against Discrimination (Section 14); and (f) Discrimination Against Women Seafarers (Section 24).
“To be engaged” is also for the protection of those possible victims of illegal recruitment and other prohibited acts under AMWA and the POEA rules in relation to the recruitment and employment of Filipino seafarers wherein the company or persons can be held criminally or administratively liable.
Opposers to Hontiveros’ proposal argued that the current definition should follow what is stated in the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC2006).
Ironically, employers and manning agencies successfully pursued the inclusion of a provision on execution bond, which is absent in MLC2006.
The provision in essence amended the Labor Code, which will have 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). There are several other provisions that essentially limited their rights rather than expanding them.
The Philippine Association of Maritime Institutions (PAMI) had opposed the inclusion of a section on Shipboard Training of Cadets as they argued that the Magna Carta should only apply to professional seafarers, not students. It has consistently raised concerns about stringent requirements, such as the need for training ships, which will financially burden students.
If students were included, why deny the same inclusion to those in between contracts, still applying for work, undergoing trainings, recently repatriated due to contract termination or other causes, or are simply on vacation?
Senator Hontiveros, however, was able to push for the inclusion in the final version of the law of the phrase: “Nothing in this Act shall diminish the protection given to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) under Republic Act No. 11641, including seafarers who are still to be engaged as such.”
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.
