Congress approves Magna Carta for Seafarers for a third time

Job applicants take shelter from the rain as they line up outside the Luneta Seafarer’s Center in Manila on October 6, 2022. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/File

MANILA — Congress has approved  for the third time the proposed Magna Carta for Seafarers.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives approved a third bicameral conference committee report reconciling the two chambers' versions of the proposal.

Enrolled copies of the consolidated versions of the House and Senate were sent to the President for signature last February 12, 2024 only for the Senate to recall the enrolled copies of the bill from the Office of the President on February 27, 2024.

Both Houses of Congress then reconstituted the bicameral panel which led to a second committee report which the Senate approved on May 22 and the House on May 23.

However, last July 29, the Senate and the House reconsidered the ratification of the 2nd bicameral report and again reconstituted the bicameral panel.

Both Houses ratified the 3rd report today, paving the way for the bill to again be sent to President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. for signature.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel III and Senator Joel Villanueva noted the path the Magna Carta on Filipino Seafarers bill had taken.

“What is that serious subject matter which has caused this measure its very strange legislative course?” Pimentel asked during the plenary session.

"I’m sorry if I have to put this on record. This has been the third time, if I’m not mistaken because twice I was a member of the bicameral conference committee. Ito po ay pangatlo na." Villanueva said.

Senator Raffy Tulfo explained that there has been a complaint “from some of the sectors” when the harmonized version of the bill was due for signing by the President.

Tulfo presented the measure for ratification by the Senate and he explained that the final version included a section, section 59 to balance the interest of both seafarers and employers to ensure the continued employability of Filipino seafarers by providing a more favorable and reasonable legal environment for the employers and ships owners and to address the pressing problem of ambulance chasing without compromising the interest of Filipino seafarers and with minimal or completely no cost to them.

Pimentel, who ultimately voted against ratification, pointed out that section 59 on the Execution of Judgment and Monetary Awards seeks to treat foreign employers of Filipino seafarers more favorably than our law treats local employers of Filipino workers.

“If we approve this insertion, adverse decisions against foreign employers of Filipino seafarers will NO LONGER be immediately executory, while those against local employers of Filipino workers are. If we approve this insertion, foreign employers of Filipino seafarers will no longer need to post a bond in order to perfect appeals of adverse decisions of the labor arbiter, while local employers of Filipino workers need to post a bond to perfect an appeal. This may lead to frivolous dilatory appeals of adverse decisions by these foreign employers of seafarers,” Pimentel said.

Pimentel also said that the insertion also seeks to treat Filipino seafarers less favorably than other Filipino workers.

"Decisions in favor of Filipino workers are immediately executory even pending appeal by the local employer. This results in immediate reinstatement in illegal dismissal cases. In the newly inserted Section 59, a bond must be posted by the seafarers before a writ of execution is issued in their favor. If we approve this requirement of posting a bond, decisions in favor of Filipino seafarers cannot be executed until the foreign employer has exhausted all his appeals up to the Supreme Court. This is clearly discriminatory if not unjust to our seafarers who file for monetary claims because of financial distress,” Pimentel said.

Senator Joel Villlanueva, who is generally supportive of the bill also had misgivings about this section.

"Nagulat lang po ako nung pumasok itong bond. So ang tanong ko lang po, ito po ba ay galing sa Senado o sa Kamara ang idea na ito because I don’t remember the Senate tackling this or approving this particular provision,” Villanueva said.

Tulfo explained that the proposal came from the Lower House.

"That did suggest bringing back the bond provision for the purpose of employability for our seafarers. Kasi nga po ang nangyari ay nakikita po ng mga shipping companies na yung Sistema ay medyo hindi tumutugma sa kanilang kagustuhan kaya kumukuha sila ng seafarers mula sa ibang bansa particular na sa India,” Tulfo said.

Likewise, Senator Risa Hontiveros also called out the bond.

"I am dismayed by the fact that the Bicameral Conference was reconvened to return the controversial provision that will mandate the payment of a bond before the monetary benefits arising from disability are released. Firstly, Under the Labor Code, the posting of bond is imposed only on the side of the employer, and worker is required to pay only a minimal appeal fee,” she said.

Hontiveros said, “Also Mr. Chair, under the NLRC Rules of Procedures, Sec. 14 and Section 6. On bond, “When appealing a case, it is only the employer who is forced to post a bond.”

Hontiveros explained that the posting of a bond singles out seafarer claims from other labor claims, both local and overseas.

"Masyado namang na-agrabyado ang mga seafarers dito. They will be penalized by the bond that also downplays their rights guaranteed in the Constitution instead of protecting their rights and promoting their welfare. To reiterate and to clarify my position on ambulance chasing, na siyang ginagamit na dahilan para sa bond, I am against ambulance chasing, we are against it, and any form of abuse of our existing laws and with the end in view of fair and speedy justice for all,” Hontiveros said.

Hontiveros and Villanueva both urged caution in the use of the Agarang Kalinga at Saklolo para sa mga OFW na Nangangailangan (AKSYON) Fund of the Department of Migrant Workers which provides legal, medical, financial and other forms of assistance to OFWs, including repatriation, shipment of remains, evacuation, rescue, and any other analogous help or intervention to protect the rights of Filipino nationals for posting the bond.

"Tama po ba na binibigyan natin ng pahintulot na gamitin ang pondo ng gobyerno para tulungan ang mga shipowners and manning agencies by the posting of a bond? " Hontiveros said, "As far as I know, it is not right to use government funds to reimburse private corporations, and no public funds can be used for a private purpose."

"Bakit biglang naipasok ang Aksyon Fund para lang ma-justify ang bond? Mr. President, any disbursement of funds will require an allocation of a budget by Congress,” Hontiveros said.

"Sapagkat remember, the Department of Migrant Workers, hindi lang po sea-based yan. Ito pong ating dinidiscuss is Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers. Meron pong mga hindi seafarers sa DMW." Villanueva said, "Kasi po bond po ito ng seafarer hindi po ng buong OFW. Again, taxpayers money po ito. If you’re using public funds, eh mag-iinvite po ito ng mga kaso dun sa mga implementing agency. And this is just a caution, Mr. President. I’d like that to be put on record. Perhaps, Mr. President, to say the least I have very strong reservations despite the fact that I am supportive of the measure."