IT used to be that those who were engaged and worked as crew onboard ships were denominated simply as seafarers, regardless of position, gender or affiliation. RA 12021 otherwise, known as the Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers instituted two categories of Filipino seafarers: a) domestic seafarers and b) overseas seafarers.
Without the need to refer to the law, one can conclude that the classification of Filipino seafarers would refer to the area of operation of the ship to which they are deployed, either in domestic or international waters.
Citizens of this archipelago used to the term “domestic workers” have thrown out that term to describe those who were hired as house helpers outside the country. Instead, they now answer to the term overseas Filipino workers (OFW), ascribing the term to their place of work, i.e., outside of the Philippines. The OFW acronym as well covers Filipino professionals such as nurses, engineers, doctors, and other technical workers, including seafarers. Such a description gives pride to any Filipino working overseas, regardless of the type of work he or she is engaged in.
Comes now RA12021 which defines seafarers not only on the basis of the area of operation of the ship where they are deployed but more glaringly on the category of education and training programs they have received. Domestic seafarers are those who will complete a domestic maritime degree, a program that qualifies them for certification as domestic seafarers. By contrast, an international maritime degree that deals with the training, education, and certification of international seafarers is required for one to be considered as an overseas seafarer.
It appears that the distinction between the two-degree programs is tied up to the curriculum as the domestic maritime degree need not conform with the requirements of the International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). With the distinction of the two maritime degree programs, a holder of a domestic maritime degree may not be able to qualify for certification as an overseas seafarer, a policy that excludes and impedes them from being deployed on ships engaged in international trade unless they have completed an international degree program.
There is a need to understand the wisdom in drawing the distinction between a domestic maritime degree and an international maritime degree. Is it not that the principle of engineering (or marine engineering) is the same regardless of the degree program for which it is taught? In the same manner, the basic principles of safe navigation should be applicable wherever the seafarer may later be deployed, in domestic shipping or international trading.
Proponents of the two higher maritime education programs offer the following arguments: 1) ships plying in domestic waters do not have the sophistication as they do not have the equipment which is found on ships operating overseas, creating an impression that domestic ships are old and are not technologically updated; and 2) to address domestic shipowners’ complaints of being the springboard for training Filipino seafarers who are bent on joining ships in international voyage. These are arguments that were articulated for so long a time and should have been sorted out by the government decades ago.
Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution under the sub-heading of “Labor” calls on the State to afford equality of employment opportunities for all. Is RA12021 consistent with this Constitutional prescription? What are the compelling reasons to warrant a departure from the established route for Filipinos pursuing a seafaring profession? Most specifically, will categorizing Filipino seafarers as either domestic or overseas seafarers resolve the aforementioned arguments?
A practical question begs to be answered: How many senior high school finishers would aim for a seafaring career in domestic shipping? Students currently enrolled in maritime education programs have their minds set on joining international ships. Working on domestic ships is an option open to a seafarer; with RA 12021, a prospective seafarer must exercise such an option before he proceeds to the higher education program. Likewise, will maritime higher education institutions be willing to offer a program that may not be able to attract enrollees?
Denominating a Filipino seafarer as a domestic seafarer carries with it that pejorative meaning of being inferior to those deployed onboard international ships, thus impairing their identity as less prestigious than those who are considered international seafarers. The demeaning classification will cause domestic seafarers to suffer from reduced self-esteem and may even create enmity between these two categories of seafarers.
In the end, it is the Philippines, purportedly a maritime nation, that will lose out.
Be the first to comment