FFW: Execution bond of Magna Carta disproportionately punishes seafarers

FFW: Execution bond of Magna Carta disproportionately punishes seafarers
Atty. Dennis Gorecho April 25, 2025 https://businessmirror.com.ph/2025/04/25/ffw-execution-bond-of-magna-car...

The execution bond requirement serves no legitimate purpose other than to delay the delivery of justice to seafarers who have already endured long and costly legal battles.

Thus declared Federation of Free Workers’s (FFW) president and lawyer Sonny Matula in the petition filed before the Supreme Court on March 20, 2025, along with three seafarers, that challenges Sections 59 and 60 of Republic Act 12021, also known as the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers.

RA 12021 was enacted into law by President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. on September 23, 2024 with the intent to promote the rights and welfare of Filipino seafarers. The implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) was signed on January 8, 2025.

Section 59 of RA 12021 “requires that before a disputed amount of a monetary award in favor of a seafarer can be executed while the NLRC or voluntary arbitrator’s decision is pending appeal with the courts, the seafarer must first file a bond sufficient to fully restitute the amount in case the award is eventually reversed by the courts.”

Matula stressed that the petition is of utmost economic and social significance, as it determines whether Filipino seafarers—who significantly contribute to the Philippine economy through remittances and maritime trade—will have unhindered access to just compensation.

The bond requirement if allowed to stand will have an adverse impact on the ability of Filipino seafarers to claim the compensation and benefits rightfully awarded to them.

As it affects all seafarers seeking redress for labor-related claims, Matula noted that the monetary awards granted to seafarers by labor tribunals constitute not only earned compensation and benefits but also means of subsistence for their families. These funds are a matter of survival for thousands of seafarers who often face prolonged unemployment or disability due to workplace hazards.

Imposing a bond requirement as a condition for execution unjustly delays access to these funds, which seafarers rely on for their livelihood.

The bond requirement places an undue burden on seafarers, delaying the execution of decisions in their favor, and is discriminatory because it applies only to seafarers and not to land-based workers.

Matula noted that the petition solely concerns the constitutionality of Section 59 as it involves an inquiry into whether the law’s bond requirement for seafarers constitutes a violation of equal protection and a denial of access to justice, particularly in light of the principle of social justice for labor enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

The petitioners argue that these provisions unfairly single out seafarers by imposing financial obligations that land-based workers do not have to fulfill.

The imposition of a bond requirement exclusively on seafarers, while no similar obligation is placed on land-based workers, results in an unjust and discriminatory application of the law.

In the event of an adverse ruling, a seafarer forfeits the amount posted as a bond, whereas no equivalent financial obligation is imposed on non-seafarer workers under similar circumstances.

This disparate treatment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

Equal protection requires that individuals or groups similarly situated be treated alike under the law.

By singling out seafarers for a bond requirement without a substantial distinction that justifies the differential treatment, Section 59 of RA 12021 creates an unreasonable and arbitrary classification, rendering it constitutionally infirm.

Both classes of workers pursue monetary claims arising from employment, and there is no compelling reason why only seafarers should bear this additional financial burden. The differentiation between seafarers and land-based workers is not germane to the purpose of the Magna Carta for Seafarers.

Matula pointed out that the provision was allegedly included to address the issue of ambulance chasers, already penalized under RA 10706, but it disproportionately punishes seafarers instead of addressing the root cause.

He noted that the inclusion of the bond requirement is a result of strong lobbying efforts by shipowners, manpower agencies, and employers who sought to undermine the swift execution of labor awards.

The House version contains the controversial escrow/execution bond provision while these were omitted in the Senate version.

Both Houses of Congress through the bicameral committee convened three times (December 6, 2023, then May 23 and July 31, 2024) just to restore the provision on the execution bond. The House contingent led the reinstatement of the said provision.

The bicameral committee in the first report omitted the escrow but retained a provision on execution bond. The whole provision was deleted in the second report but was reinserted in the third report.