The unconstitutional and discriminatory execution bond provision reinserted in the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers

The unconstitutional and discriminatory execution bond provision reinserted in the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers
Atty. Dennis Gorecho August 2, 2024 https://businessmirror.com.ph/2024/08/02/the-unconstitutional-and-discri...

THE contentious provision on the execution bond was reinserted in the latest version of

the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers despite issues on constitutionality and discrimination.

“This is clearly discriminatory if not unjust to our seafarers who file monetary claims because of financial distress. Let us all be reminded that the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers is meant to protect the seafarers,” according to Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III.

Pimentel said 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.
The House of Representatives approved on March 6, 2023 its version (House Bill 7325) with 304 affirmative votes against four negative votes. The Senate approved Senate Bill 2221 on second and third reading on September 27, 2023 with 14 affirmative votes, no negative vote, and no abstention.

The bicameral conference committee had already convened thrice and produced harmonized bill three times, which Pimentel described as “not the usual procedure. This is a very unusual and strange procedure.”

The Magna Carta was not signed into law by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on February 26, 2024 and was later withdrawn by the House of Representatives for review on some contentious issues, including provisions on disability claims.

The debate on disability claims centered on the proposed provision that aimed to amend the Labor Code will have adverse 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).

Under Section 59, the seafarer may move for the execution of the monetary award pending appeal upon posting of a sufficient bond for the disputed portion of the award.

And if the seafarer ultimately prevails in the case, he will be reimbursed with the cost of putting up the bond. The House version contains the controversial escrow/execution bond provision while these were omitted in the Senate version.

The bicameral committee in the first report omitted the escrow but allowed an equally anti-labor and unconstitutional provision on execution bond. The whole provision was deleted in the second report but was reinserted in the third report.

Sweepingly linked with ambulance chasing, proponents stressed that such move is necessary to ensure the restitution of monetary awards in case the appropriate appellate court annuls or partially or totally reverses the monetary judgment award.

“The painful truth is this bill does not give Filipino seafarers any additional rights or benefits that they do not already enjoy by way of international agreements. On the contrary, this particular insertion even takes away a benefit that they already now enjoy,” Pimentel said, adding that the insertion seeks to treat Filipino seafarers less favorably than other Filipino workers.

Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros has been consistently opposing the contentious execution provisions.

Hontiveros pointed out that the requirement for an execution bond violates the constitutional guarantee on equal protection, which means that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

It will partake of the nature of class legislation because it singles out seafarer claims from other labor claims, both local and overseas. It is discriminatory against seafarers, as there is no substantial distinction between the claims of a seafarer and any other laborer.

The proponents of the execution bond erroneously presumed that the seafarer is in the same economic footing as the employer.

A seafarer seeks payment of monetary benefits because of the fact that he is in financial distress due to his medical condition.

Many are jobless, sick, disabled and infirm who incur huge debts to sustain their medication while others die before the decision by the Supreme Court is released. Instead of saving his earnings for his medication, he will be forced to redirect them to the execution bond, jeopardizing further his economic well-being.

Senator Joel Villanueva said: “I’d like to also put on record and caution a warning because somehow we are now treating differently and unfairly the other types of workers who are not sea-based.”

Hontiveros also echoed Pimentel’s and Villanueva’s warning on using the Agarang Kalinga at Saklolo para sa mga OFW na Nangangailangan (AKSYON) Fund of the Department of Migrant Workers as source of the bond, adding that public funds should not be used to help shipowners and manning agencies by posting a bond.

Hontiveros stressed that

the Magna Carta should be the translation into reality of late Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay’s wisdom: “He who has less in life should have more in law” as far as the constitutional social justice principle is concerned.

“Seafarers will be “penalized” that will downplay their rights guaranteed by the constitution instead of protecting their rights and promoting their welfare,” Hontiveros said.