Labor group questions constitutionality of seafarers’ law provisions before SC
A LABOR group leader on Thursday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare provisions of the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers unconstitutional for being discriminatory and in violation of the equal protection clause.
In a petition, dated March 20, Federation of Free Workers President Jose Sonny G. Matula referred to Section 59 of Republic Act (RA) No. 12021, which imposed an “unjust” bond requirement on seafarers as a precondition for the execution of monetary awards.
“The Highest Court has consistently ruled that classifications must be based on substantial distinctions that are relevant to the law’s purpose. Section 59 fails this test because it arbitrarily singles out seafarers, imposing an additional financial hurdle that other workers do not face,” Mr. Matula said in a separate statement.
According to the petition, using the Agarang Kalinga at Saklolo para sa mga OFWs na Nangangailangan (AKSYON) Funds for the payment of premiums of the bond requirement violates the Constitution for appropriating public funds for private purposes.
AKSYON Fund, under Department of Migrant Workers Act, RA No. 11641, is created to provide legal, medical, financial, and other forms of assistance to overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), including repatriation, shipment of remains, evacuation, rescue, and any other analogous help or intervention to protect the rights of Filipino nationals.
“Section 59 of the Magna Carta for Seafarers deviates from the purpose of the AKSYON Fund by allowing the Department of Migrant Workers to also use the AKSYON funds for the payment of premiums of the bond requirement,” the petition read said.
The petition claimed the Magna Carta of Seafarers violates the principles of equal protection and due process by imposing an unjust financial burden on seafarers in enforcing claims they have already won, a requirement not imposed on other workers.
He urged the High Court to declare Section 59 unconstitutional and called on labor groups to support legal action to safeguard seafarers’ right to claim their rightful benefits without facing unconstitutional barriers.
Moreover, the petitioner noted the law usurped the exclusive power of the SC, citing Section 60, which prohibited non-lawyers to act as legal representatives of seafarers before labor courts and provided a compensation cap of not more than 10%.
The provision, which sets limitations on the appearance of lawyers and stipulation of legal fees, runs contrary to the constitutional prerogative of the SC to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.
Mr. Matula also asked the top court to issue a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of both sections and the implementing rules and regulations, pending resolution of the petition. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
