Bayan Muna backs seaman suit; Unconstitutional ‘yan! Seafarers ask Supreme Court to nullify magna carta

Bayan Muna backs seaman suit
Chloe Mari A. Hufana May 6, 2025 | https://www.bworldonline.com/the-nation/2025/05/06/670767/bayan-muna-bac...

BAYAN MUNA has backed a lawsuit that seeks to void portions of the newly enacted Magna Carta for Seafarers at the Supreme Court.

“Bayan Muna, together with the seafarers, has been protesting against the unjust provisions of the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers since 2023, but our legislators have failed to heed the legitimate demands of the supposed beneficiaries of the Magna Carta law,” former Party-list Rep. Neri J. Colmenares, who lawyers for the seamen, said in a statement on Tuesday.

The lawsuit claims the law violates constitutional guarantees on equal protection of the law and legislative procedures.

The law requires a bond before a seaman can be awarded compensation, which the plaintiffs said puts undue burden that is not imposed on land-based workers.

“The seafarer has already won at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); now they also need to pay to get the compensation they won,” Mr. Colmenares said.

“What kind of Magna Carta is this? How can seafarers feed their families and post a bond when they are unemployed due to injuries?” he asked.

Unconstitutional ‘yan! Seafarers ask Supreme Court to nullify magna carta
POLITIKO | May 6, 2025 https://politiko.com.ph/2025/05/06/unconstitutional-yan-seafarers-ask-su...

The Supreme Court (SC) has been asked on Tuesday (May 6) to nullify Republic Act (RA) 12021, also known as the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers, for alleged unconstitutionality.

The petition, filed by Concerned Seafarers of the Philippines and other parties, challenges Section 59 of the law, which they argue violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by treating seafarers differently from other workers in labor disputes.

The petition also argues that the law’s provision for the AKSYON Fund unjustly benefits private enterprises and that the law’s passage violated constitutional procedures.

“The extreme complication and injuries resulting from the implementation of the Magna Carta law and its implementing rules and regulation require the urgent need to restrain its implementation and maintain the status quo pending the resolution of whether these assailed provisions are indeed constitutional,” reads the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before the SC.

“If not restrained, grave injustice and irreparable damage will result to Petitioners and all stakeholders affected by the Magna Carta,” added the petition.

The petition was filed by Concerned Seafarers of the Philippines; International Seafarers Action Center; and three seafarers who were released after being held hostage by Houthi pirates.

The petitioners said Section 59 of the Magna Carta violates the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution.

“Under the assailed Section 59 of the Magna Carta, the decisions of the labor tribunals with respect to labor disputes of seafarers, are no longer executory pending appeal, as it requires that the seafarers ‘post a sufficient bond to ensure the full restitution of those amounts of the bond shall be mained by the (obligee) until final resolution of the appeal or judicial review,” they said.

In contrast, they pointed out “decisions of the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) labor tribunals and that of the NCMB (National Conciliation and Mediation Board) voluntary arbitrators, with respect to workers, other than seafarers, are final and executory even pending appeal, unless restrained by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.”

“There is no reasonable justification to treat labor disputes of seafarers (who are sea based OFWs) differently from labor disputes of land based OFWS (overseas Filipino workers) and other workers in the Philippines, by depriving the seafarers the benefit of a final and executory labor tribunal decision in the event of a favorable decision,” argued the petitioners.

“The labor dispute of seafarers is not different from the labor dispute of other workers, because it will always be about the terms and conditions of employment,” they added.

The petitioners said the law provides for the creation of the AKSYON Fund which may pay for the premium of the bond required from the seafarer.

“But a deeper look into the process would reveal that it is the manning agency/foreign principal that ultimately benefits. In the event that the favorable decision secured by the seafarer would be reversed in the appellate court – in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court – the manning agency/foreign principal, who in proceedings before the labor ‘tribunal’ a quo (either the NLRC or NCMB) paid the seafarer based on the amount stated in the favorable decision, would be reimbursed not by the seafarer, but by the AKSYON Fund through the bond. And it is ultimately the Filipino taxpayers whose taxes are the source of the AKSYON Fund who will reimburse these manning agency/foreign principal,” they claimed.

“Clearly, the AKSYON Fund under Section 59 is used for the benefit of a private enterprise; it is not for a public purpose, it is not for a social justice purpose. As such, it violates the limitation that public funds can only be used for a public purpose,” they stressed.

The petitioners also assailed the law’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR) concerning the cut-off date in the filing of cases.

The IRR states that: “Complaints filed prior to the effectivity of the law shall be governed by the laws, rules and regulations prevailing as of the date of their filing.”

“However, under Article 291 of the Labor Code (P.D. 442 as amended), the worker/ employee has a period of three (3) years within which to institute his or her money claim against the employer,” cited the petitioners.

The petitioners also told the SC that the law also violated the Constitution’s procedure in passing bills.

“A review of the timeline of the passage of the Magna Carta would show that Congress made amendments to a bill already approved on Third Reading three times,” they said.

They noted that “three (3) Bicam Reports were ratified by both Houses of Congress, in December 13, 2023, in May 22, 2024, and in July 31, 2024.”

The petitioners stated that ”it is clear that Congress violated the process mandated by the 1987 Constitution — ‘Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal’.”

Article VI, Section 27(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides: “Every bill passed by Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President.”

“However, the petitioners said Congress this provision of the Constitution twice when the House of Representatives ratified a February 2024 resolution to have the enrolled bill recalled and the second Bicam report that was ratified on May 22, 2024 was not sent to the Office of the President,” said the petitioners.