THE Maritime Labor Convention 2006 (MLC2006) defines a seafarer as “a person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which the Convention applies.” In the simple construction of the definition — any person, regardless of his nationality, the position he holds, the flag of the ship that employs him, or the area of operation of that ship, is a seafarer.
The proposed Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers (MCFS), on the other hand, defines a seafarer as “any Filipino who is engaged, employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship covered by this Act.” The term seafarer under the bill is limited to Filipino nationals. In addition, two categories of seafarers have been included — domestic seafarers and overseas seafarers — the main distinction of which is the area of operation of the ship on which they are employed.
It would appear, though, that the purpose of adopting the category of a “domestic seafarer” is to specify that this group of seafarers is covered by Presidential Decree 442 or the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, compared to the “overseas seafarer” who works on board ships plying international waters.
If the main purpose of the Magna Carta is to stipulate the applicability of the Labor Code to those seafarers deployed on ships engaged in inter-island/domestic routes, then the substantive provision under Section 5 of the proposed MCFS should suffice.
There is no need to come up with the term “domestic seafarer,” which may sound disparaging considering the possible association with “domestic helpers,” a term that Filipinos try to discard by referring to the latter as overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) lumped together with other workers, skilled and professionals.
The disparity between a domestic seafarer and an overseas seafarer is most pronounced with the training, education, and certification requirements for domestic maritime degrees and international maritime degrees. The International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) sets the minimum requirement for the qualification of seafarers with the twin objectives of ensuring maritime safety and the protection of the environment. Should not all aspiring Filipino seafarers be entitled to take the maritime degree of their choice?
Will the principles of navigation and marine engineering differ based on the category of a seafarer, i.e., domestic or overseas seafarer, or even in the area of operation? What competencies are expected to go into a domestic maritime degree that is any different from that of the international maritime degree? Will the subject of collision prevention, for example, to be taught to domestic seafarers depart from the “rules of the road” to be taught to overseas seafarers?
One can argue that the government could institute maritime safety rules in the domestic routes that are different from international standards. So, what standards would apply? The government is expected to approximate maritime safety standards as high as those globally accepted; after all, the lives of Filipino passengers and crew are as invaluable as those of passengers and crew on ships on international voyages. The creation of an apparent glass ceiling separating domestic and international seafarers certainly will keep away anyone who wishes to pursue a maritime career from enrolling in the domestic maritime degree.
Will there be maritime schools ready to offer a domestic maritime degree?
Be the first to comment