For Filipino seafarers seeking justice, winning a labor case is only half the battle. The newly enacted Magna Carta for Seafarers requires them to post a financial bond before claiming their monetary awards, an obligation not imposed on land-based workers.

Now, a labor rights group and several Filipino seafarers are taking their fight to the Supreme Court, arguing that the bond requirement imposes an unfair financial burden and violates their right to equal protection.

The petition, filed on March 20 by Federation of Free Workers (FFW)’s president and lawyer Sonny Matula, along with seafarers Joy Martinez, Julius Claramon, and Arnaldo Borromeo, challenges Sections 59 and 60 of Republic Act No. 12021, also known as the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers.

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

“Petitioner contends that the 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,” they stated in their petition.

Bond requirement adds financial burden 

Under Section 59, seafarers who win monetary claims against employers must first post a bond before they can enforce a ruling in their favor. If the case is appealed, enforcement is only allowed if the opposing party also provides a financial guarantee. The petitioners argued that this requirement creates an additional financial barrier that prevents seafarers from securing justice.

Matula criticized the provision, calling it a form of discrimination against seafarers.

“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,” he said.

The petitioners emphasized that requiring seafarers to post a bond contradicts the law’s supposed goal of protecting their rights and welfare.

“Requiring seafarers to post a bond before they can enforce a favorable decision, places an additional financial burden on them, effectively limiting their ability to obtain redress. Instead of protecting seafarers, this requirement weakens their position by subjecting them to a legal hurdle not imposed on other workers,” they argued.

If a seafarer loses the appeal, the bond is forfeited — an obligation not imposed on land-based workers. The petitioners contended that this creates an unjust system that disproportionately affects seafarers, who already face numerous legal and financial challenges in claiming their rightful compensation.

“The provision effectively delays the enforcement of awards in favor of seafarers, unfairly burdening them and their families, and contradicts the very principles of social justice that the law purports to uphold,” they said.

The petitioners further argued that Section 59 of R.A. 12021 creates an unreasonable and arbitrary classification by imposing a bond requirement exclusively on seafarers without a valid distinction to justify the unequal treatment, making it constitutionally infirm.

Challenge to legal representation rules 

Beyond the bond requirement, the petition also challenged Section 60, which sets rules on legal representation and fees in seafarers’ cases. The petitioners claimed that this provision infringes on the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to regulate the legal profession.

They also questioned the use of the Department of Migrant Workers’ AKSYON Fund to provide financial assistance to seafarers. They argued that instead of holding employers accountable, the provision shifts responsibility to the government.

Created under Republic Act No. 11641, the AKSYON Fund is designed to provide legal, medical, and financial assistance to overseas Filipino workers, including support for repatriation, rescue, and other urgent needs.

However, the petitioners argued that the government is using it to cover seafarers’ financial burdens in labor disputes, which undermines their right to just compensation from their employers.

Supreme Court urged to act 

Matula, who is also running for the Senate in the May elections, urged the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend the implementation of Sections 59 and 60, as well as the law’s implementing rules and regulations.

He also called on labor organizations to rally behind the legal challenge, stressing that seafarers deserve fair treatment under the law.

Matula warned that Section 59 undermines social justice by penalizing seafarers who have already won their cases instead of protecting them.

The Magna Carta for Seafarers, signed into law by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr in September 2024, was intended to uphold the rights of the country’s 570,626 seafarers, who make up a quarter of the world’s maritime workforce.

However, critics argue that certain provisions, particularly the bond requirement, undermine its goal of protecting seafarers’ welfare.

Photo credit: Sonny Matula Facebook. Sonny Matula.