JOINT SHIP MANNING GROUP v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, GR No. 247471, 2020-07-07
Facts:
R.A. No. 1161, or the Social Security Act of 1954, established the Social Security System (SSS). Its declared policy was to develop a social security service to protect Filipino workers. At that time, Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) were not covered by the said law. Subsequently, in 1987, the 74th Geneva Maritime Session of the International Labour Organization (ILO) ruled that seafarers have the right to social security protection, an internationally accepted principle. Eighteen (18) countries, including the Philippines, signed the Session’s act.[2]On July 14, 1988, the SSS and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (1988 MOA), stating that one of the conditions of the Standard Employment Contract (SEC) of seafarers would be that sea based OFWs shall be covered by the SSS.[3]
In 1995, the Court promulgated Sta. Rita v. Court of Appeals (Sta. Rita),[4] which stated that R.A. No. 1161 does not exempt seafarers from coverage of the SSS law. It was underscored therein that the SEC entered into by the seafarer and the manning agencies, which imposes SSS coverage, is valid and binding.In 1997, Congress enacted R.A. No. 8282 or the 1997 SSS Law. However, the said law still did not consider the mandatory coverage of OFWs under the SSS. In 2006, the ILO adopted the Maritime Labour Convention (2006 MLC) to establish the minimum working living standards for all seafarers. It provides for the labor rights of a seafarer, including social protection, and the implementation and enforcement of these rights.[5]In 2010, the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) amended the SEC, declaring that the seafarer’s SSS coverage is a duty of the principal, the employer, the master, or the company.[6]
On February 7, 2019, Congress enacted R.A. No. 11199, which mandated compulsory SSS coverage for OFWs. The purpose of the law is to provide OFWs with SSS benefits, especially upon retirement. It also increased the rates of SSS contributions to provide relief for the dwindling resources of the SSS. Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199 covers the compulsory coverage of OFWs
The purpose of the law is to provide OFWs with SSS benefits, especially upon retirement.
All benefit provisions under this Act shall apply to
All benefit provisions under this Act shall apply… to a… ll covered OFWs. The ben… all covered OFWs. The ben
All benefit provisions under this Act shall apply to all covered OFWs. The benefits
To be valid and reasonable, the classification must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.[30]
Issues:
WHETHER SEC. 9-B OF R.A. NO. 11199 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT VIOLATES SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF RIGHTS.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
In Sourthern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council,[17] a petition was filed attacking the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9372. The Court ruled that there was no actual justiciable controversy because the possibility of abuse in the implementation of the law does not make a petition justiciable. Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights, which are legally demandable and enforceable.In Republic v. Roque,[18] a similar petition assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9372 did not have an actual justiciable controversy because it failed to demonstrate how the petitioners therein are left to sustain or are in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed provisions of R.A. No. 9372.Nevertheless, the Court, through the years, has allowed litigants to seek from it direct relief upon allegation of “serious and important reasons.” Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections[19]
It must be clarified, however, that the presence of one or more of the so-called “serious and important reasons” is not the only decisive factor considered by the Court in deciding whether to permit the invocation, at the first instance, of its original jurisdiction over the issuance of extraordinary writs. Rather, it is the nature of the question raised by the parties in those “exceptions” that enables us to allow the direct action before the Court.
The assailed law concerns the welfare of OFWs, the modern-day Filipino heroes, and the grant of social protection in their favor.
the Court must ensure that this social security must be for the welfare of the seafarers and, at the same time, not unduly oppressive to other stakeholders, such as the manning agencies and foreign ship owners.
It is a basic axiom of constitutional law that all presumptions ate indulged in favor of constitutionality and a liberal interpretation of the Constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted. Thus, if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, the same should be upheld. Consequently, the burden is squarely on the shoulders of the one alleging unconstitutionality to prove invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt by negating all possible bases for the constitutionality of a statute. Verily, to doubt is to sustain.[24]
R.A. No. 11199 was enacted, among others, to extend social security protection to Filipino workers, local or overseas, and their beneficiaries.[25] Sec. 9-B(a) states that OFWs shall have compulsory coverage by the SSS. Sec. 9-B(b) states that manning agencies are agents of their principals and are considered as employers of sea-based OFWs which make them jointly and severally or solidarily liable with their principals with respect to the civil liabilities therein. On the other hand, the recruitment agencies of land-based OFWs are not considered as agents of their principals, and thus, are not jointly and solidarily liable for the SSS contributions.
In Gutierrez v. Department of Budget and Management,[28] it was ruled that the fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another. The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class.[29]
To be valid and reasonable, the classification must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.[30]
The Court finds that Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199 does not violate the equal protection of laws because there is a substantial distinction between sea-based OFWs and land-based OFWs.
As properly argued by respondents, seafarers constitute a unique classification of OFWs. Their essential difference against land-based OFWs is that all seafarers have only one (1) standard contract, which provides the rights and obligations of the foreign ship owner, the seafarer and the manning agencies.
The POEA-SEC outlines all the duties and responsibilities of the foreign ship owners, manning agencies, and seafarers within its coverage. As long as the seafarer is employed or engaged in overseas employment in any capacity on board a ship, the POEA-SEC shall apply to him or her.[31]
Contrary thereto, land-based OFWs do not have singular or uniform employment contract because of the variety of work they perform. Their contracts depend on the nature of their employment and their place of work.
In The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. v. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc.),[34] the petitioners therein assailed the constitutionality of the POEA’s power to increase the minimum compensation and benefits in favor of seafarers under their SEC. One of their arguments was that there is violation of the equal protection clause because of an alleged discrimination against foreign shipowners and principals employing Filipino seamen and in favor of foreign employers employing overseas Filipinos who are not seamen, or land-based OFWs.[35]In that case, the Court declared that there was no violation of the equal protection clause because there is valid substantial distinction between sea based OFWs and land-based OFWs, particularly, in work environment, safety, dangers and risks to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civic, and spiritual activities.
It was stated that:There is, as well, no merit to the claim that the assailed resolution and memorandum circular violate the equal protection and contract clauses of the Constitution. To support its contention of inequality, the petitioners claim discrimination against foreign shipowners and principals employing Filipino seamen and in favor of foreign employers employing overseas Filipinos who are not seamen.
Consequently, the different treatment of seafarers and manning agencies is justified and germane to the purpose of the law.
A declared policy of R.A. No. 11199 is to extend social security protection to Filipino workers, local or overseas, and their beneficiaries. The law applied the existing law and regulations regarding the joint and solidary liability of manning agencies with principal foreign ship owners to attain the statutory purpose of the mandatory coverage of seafarers under the SSS. As a result, the joint and solidary liability of the manning agency with principal foreign ship owners was reasonably extended to the obligations regarding SSS contributions. This satisfies the second requisite that the classification be germane to the purpose of the law.In the same manner, the assailed provision does not only apply to existing conditions. Seafarers are completely covered by the SSS, and all the manning agencies, without any prior conditions, shall have a solidary liability with the principal foreign ship owners for the SSS contributions. Likewise, the mandatory coverage of SSS applies to all kinds of seafarers, regardless of position or designation on their respective vessels. Hence, the third and fourth requisites – that the classification must not be limited to existing conditions only and that it must apply equally to all members of the same class – are complied with. As there is a valid and legal classification between sea-based OFWs and land-based OFWs, there is no violation of the equal protection clause.
As R.A. No. 11199 is fair and reasonable with respect to its penal provisions, there is no violation of substantial due process.
Indeed, only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. This is as it ought to be. The principle of separation of powers has in the main wisely allocated the respective authority of each department and confined its jurisdiction to such a sphere. There would then be intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a matter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch, the judiciary would substitute its own. If there be adherence to the rule of law, as there ought to be, the last offender should be the courts of justice, to which rightly litigants submit their controversy precisely to maintain unimpaired the supremacy of legal norms and prescriptions. The attack on the validity of the challenged provision likewise, insofar as there may be objections, even if valid and cogent, on its wisdom cannot be sustained.[59]
As petitioners failed to prove that Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199, to the extent that sea-based OFWs are concerned, violates the Constitution, then this statutory provision must be upheld in favor of the obligatory SSS coverage of the seafarers.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Principles:
Indeed, only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. This is as it ought to be. The principle of separation of powers has in the main wisely allocated the respective authority of each department and confined its jurisdiction to such a sphere. There would then be intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a matter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch, the judiciary would substitute its own. If there be adherence to the rule of law, as there ought to be, the last offender should be the courts of justice, to which rightly litigants submit their controversy precisely to maintain unimpaired the supremacy of legal norms and prescriptions. The attack on the validity of the challenged provision likewise, insofar as there may be objections, even if valid and cogent, on its wisdom cannot be sustained.[59]