Enabling law of the Maritime Labor Convention 2006

Last of two parts

THERE is unconfirmed news that the proposed bill on the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers (MCFS) as adjusted and reconsidered by the Bicameral Conference Committee of Congress is up for ratification on third reading in both houses of Congress. As the legislative mill continues to roll prior to transmittal to the President, drafting the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) this early should give a vague idea on the complexity of the subjects covered by the law.

The rights of seafarers, maritime education and training, and maritime safety are subjects meticulously formulated and adopted through international agreements and covenants. That the mentioned subjects are drawn into separate and distinct conventions convey a manifest intent of ensuring there is a clear focus and understanding of the requirements propounded by international instruments in order to facilitate implementation and enforcement by signatory States. The ever-changing character of shipping with the numerous undertakings and interests that go with it makes it all the more important for the conventions to define the boundaries of the subject covered.

Yet these are subject matters that are fused into one draft legislation, the MCFS. The Philippines has ratified several of the maritime conventions, yet not all have been transposed into national law and regulations, an obligation which attaches to a signatory State.

The importance of national legislation to implement a ratified convention is highlighted in the case of the STCW Convention where a white listing of compliant signatory States takes into account the existence of domestic law/rules and regulations to effectively implement the convention. Republic Act 10635 which implements the convention is therefore the basis in drawing up detailed rules, processes and procedures for the education, training and certification of Filipino seafarers. It is also the basic reference which the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other flag States hiring Filipino seafarers use to determine the Philippines’ compliance monitoring and enforcement of the provisions of the STCW convention.

On the other hand, Republic Act 11641 or the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) Act substantially serves as the enabling law of the MLC. The DMW by absorbing the mandate of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) has a slew of rules and regulations equivalent to those provided in the technical and administrative regulations of the MLC; what needs to be done is to determine the gaps between the MLC and the DMW rules and regulations and where necessary introduce amendments through executive act.

Maritime safety provisions such as those on minimum safe manning and the exercise of port and flag State inspection are already clearly identified mandates of pertinent maritime agencies. It is an established right of every signatory State to a convention to ensure that ships calling its ports are compliant with maritime safety, security and environment protection conventions. This right is found in almost all conventions yet, there is only one designated port State control authority in maritime countries. The Philippine Coast Guard is the designated port State authority of the Philippines and its team of inspectors has the needed experience and knowledge on control procedures consistent with the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Port State Control.

PCG has been exercising these functions for decades and therefore has the needed expertise to do so. Besides, there is more to just doing port and flag State functions as provided in the MCFS as this must be valuated in light of the added layers of government inspectors going onboard ships; the introduction of a multi-agency port State control inspection will definitely impact on the national policy of “ease of doing business” and facilitation of ship/port interface.

Need for a Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers

Yes, there is a need for the MCFS. However, the MCFS focus on the basic rights of seafarers as enunciated by the MLC must take a different perspective and tenor and instead guarantee the following:

1) Accountability of all agencies and public officers/regulators and implementers for failure to implement the laws and rules and regulations pertaining to the exercise of rights by seafarers. After all, the principle of a Magna Carta or the Great Charter which emanated from England is the protection of the “regulated sector” from the abuses of the monarch, rulers (government). A canon or a pledge of what the government commits to do to uphold the rights and protect the well-being of Filipino seafarers is what a Magna Carta must carry. Unfortunately, these are absent in the proposed bill.

2) Provisions that will cover those other seafarers which are excluded by the MLC such as the seafarers onboard fishing vessels as well as fishermen who are involved in the catching of fish and other marine products. They are as much part of the country’s maritime human capital who deserve the protection of the government.

3. How about including in the Magna Carta, instead of repeating what is already found in existing legislation/rules and regulations, the mobilization of a Congressional Maritime Industry Commission which will institutionalize the oversight function of Congress in relation to the implementation of maritime laws enacted by the legislature?

Filipinos take pride in the archipelagic attributes of the Philippines acknowledging the socio-economic contributions of the maritime industry; legislation remains the cornerstone in the development of the country’s maritime economy.