According to Atty Brenda Pimentel:

        “It is unfortunate that in this archipelago, there is no overarching policy direction that binds into a cohesive maritime aspiration. The fisheries sector, maritime transport industry, coastal tourism, recreational sector, marine environment protection and many more ocean-based activities are undertaken almost exclusively by each other, although at times it is submitted, collaboration is initiated.

        The absence of legislative coherence is most pronounced in the maritime transport industry which embraces several subsectors such as seafaring (also considered as a subsector of the labor industry), maritime education (which is under the wider umbrella of the country’s educational system), shipbuilding and repair (product and service providers), environment protection (the core mandate of which rests with the environment agencies), and many other subsectors. These enumerated subsectors of the maritime transport industry also stand as independent industries in their respective core activities.”

Our President at the start of his term started reviewing legislation left by the previous administration and it is unfortunate that one of the casualties of the presidential veto is the legislation on National Transportation Safety.

A president’s certification of urgency strengthens the chances of a few hundred bills filed in in the lower house and the senate, but unfortunately the chances of thousands of other thousands bills to be archived, if not vetoed, is high even if it reached the Bicameral conference.

Here are some of the important Maritime-related laws.

• PD 1284 Granting the PPA to plan, construct, and maintain all port terminals in North harbor;
• PD 1711 further amends PD 760 and encourages the chartering of specialized Ocean-going vessels;
• EO84 the creation of an inter-agency council on the International Maritime Organization (IMO) member-state audit scheme;
• EO 75 designates the DOTC through the MARINA as the single administration in the Philippines responsible for the oversight in the implementation of the international convention on standards of training and certification of Seafarers;
• EO 159 adopts an integrated approach in the ratification and accession to the International Maritime Organization conventions and instruments, reconstituting the inter-agency committee for the purpose.

Maritime-related legislation enacted in the last two decades pertains to maritime education and the seafaring sector. Republic Act 11659 which amended the Public Service Act is the most recent maritime-related legislation. It is expected to build up capital infusion from foreign investors, which is a departure from the focus given to maritime education and seafarers. Nonetheless, there are a slew of maritime bills under consideration by Congress related to maritime education, the welfare of Filipino seafarers (Magna Carta), the Philippine ship registry, and the implementation of international maritime conventions.

In my previous article on Safety of Life at Seas, I enumerated several bills that I think will need the President’s certification of urgency, considering that there was the soon-to-be vetoed National Transportation Safety Board.

Presidential Certification of Urgency

Several bills including the vetoed National Transport and Safety Board Bill and others relating to maritime safety and or maritime governance had been filed and refilled in congress such as:

• The creation of a National Transport Safety Board
• Maritime Code of the Philippines
• Creation of Admiralty Courts
• Maritime Administration Act
• Ship Registry Bill
• Magna Carta for Seafarers
• Bills concerning Merchant Marine Officers
• Marine Environment Protection
• Splitting Regulatory and Operational Roles of the PPA
• Municipal Ports
• Privatize Ports
• Maritime Zones
• Philippine National Maritime Academy
• Other Senate Bills for the Philippine Ports Authority.

At present, the current Maritime Administration of our government is thinly spread among 14 bureaus and agencies under 7 departments. The fragmentation of our maritime administration has led to bureaucratic entanglement, functional overlaps, and conflicting maritime laws and regulations. The restructuring of maritime administration is a first step by creating one super-body consisting of maritime bureaus and maritime agencies.

The creation of a National Transportation and Safety Board is a major step to promote transportation safety by conducting independent safety investigations and by formulating safety improvement recommendations.

The Maritime Code of the Philippines hopes to address the Philippines’ non-implementation of international conventions.

The Philippines has been a party of the following international safety conventions:

• The International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (1974);
• The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution at Ships (1973);
• The Convention on International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea (1972);
• The International Convention of Load Lines (1966);
• The International Convention of Tonnage Measurement (1969).

However, the Philippines is not a part of the following conventions:

• SOLAS Protocol of 1988
• MARPOL Protocol of 1997
• Load Lines Protocol of 1988 (amended, 2003)

The Bill seeks to implement these protocols with MARINA as the lead agency.

While the Bill is yet to be passed, Former President Duterte issued EO 159 which adopts an integrated approach in the ratification and accession to International Maritime Conventions, and reconstituting the inter-Agency Committees for that purpose.

It is a given that our nation’s institutions are fragmented, ourbureaucracy is caught in an entangled web, turf wars and overlapping functions happen more often than not.

A creation of the Coast Watch system seemed to have a failure of launching because of Command and Control Issues, so a creation of a super-body with Command and Control to handle Maritime Administration is a must.

A non-regulatory independent investigative body is also needed to handle maritime accidents, and safety incident investigations.

A Maritime Code will make our local safety laws and regulations in consonance with international safety laws.

Lastly, the creation of the Maritime court will speed up the resolution of Maritime related cases.

The creation of specialized Admiralty Maritime Courts will unclog our courts of all maritime case backlogs.

Philippine Ship Registry

 

Photo Credit: by Michael Treu from pixabay | source: Portcalls

 

According to an article in Portcalls:

·         A House bill seeking to set up a ship registry system in the Philippines and establish the country as a leading maritime nation and respected flag-state has gained support from government agencies, shipping, and maritime groups;

·         HB No. 4336 aims to establish the scope and procedure for the Philippine ship registry;

·         MARINA said the Bill’s proposed new structure unifying the registration and licensing system of overseas and domestic fleets will “give our domestic shipowners the opportunity to embark on overseas shipping and service the transport requirements of our import and export trade;”

·         A technical working group will be created to tackle HB 4336 and the written positions that will be sent by the involved government agencies and stakeholder groups.

Senator Sotto talking about Maritime Zones:

Maritime Zones (NOAA Coastal Service Center)

        ‘SB 2289 declares that “maritime zones of the Philippines comprise the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.” “All territories of the Philippines shall generate their respective maritime zones in accordance with internal law,” the proposal said.

      The internal waters mentioned in the measure refers to waters on the landward side of the archipelagic baselines not forming part of archipelagic waters, and waters on the landward side of the baselines of the territorial sea of territories outside of the archipelagic baselines. Archipelagic waters refer to the waters on the landward side of the archipelagic baselines.

      The Bill likewise states that the territorial sea of the Philippines refers to the adjacent belt of sea measured 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the territorial sea, while the contiguous zone refers to the waters beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea and up to the extent of 24 nautical miles from the baselines.

      In this zone, proposed SB 2289 says the government would exercise control to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; and punish any infringement committed within its territory or territorial sea.

      Also in the measure is the definition of the country’s continental shelf, which comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea.

      The proposal states that the Philippines could exercise sovereignty over its internal waters, archipelagic waters and territorial sea, and the airspace over it as well as its seabed and subsoil in accordance with the UNCLOS and other existing laws and treaties.’

Senator Tulfo on the Magna Carta For Seafarers.

        ‘More than a quarter of the world’s seafarers come from the Philippines. Translated into more specific figures, over 25% of the 1.5 million seafarers in the world are Filipinos.

        Like other OFW’s, our Filipino seafarers are looked up to as modern-day heroes. We take great pride in them because they are in fact preferred in the global fleet. Engineer Nelson Ramirez, the President of the United Filipino Seafarers attests to this preference and aptly describes that – “They speak English. They are hardworking. They are well-trained, they are adaptable, are able to turn to any job and “pliant like a bamboo.”

        While we are grateful for their contributions to our economy and we take pride in their admirable qualities, the question remains -are we giving enough protection to our Filipino seafarers? This is the reason why we are gathered here today.

        Our seafarers have essentially similar employment issues and concerns as other OFW’s but the nature of their work bear certain peculiarities that calls for separate legislation. Their Contracts are usually contracts of adhesion where terms and conditions are often times ambiguous to them. They are not only physically away from their families but they are at sea, sailing non-stop, where communication lines can be extremely difficult, and they are exposed to harsh weather conditions with the risk of injury or even death.

        The Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers codifies the rights of our seafarers into a single reference law. It seeks to secure their rights to decent, just and humane conditions of employment aboard sea-going vessels and set a guide for their training and education, overseas employment and ultimately retirement.’

Allow me to explore further on a bill that displays the difficulties of implementing our Local Government Code.

It is the Bill that proposes Municipal Ports be managed and run by the relative Local Government Unit (LGU) instead of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). This is important to know because cities like the City of Manila want a share of the ports income.

During the 14^th Congress, Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada filed Senate Bill 449 or the Municipal Ports Act of 2007.

        There are at present approximately 19 base ports, 75 secondary ports, 528 municipal or tertiary ports and more than 300 private ports throughout the country. The control, management and operation of these ports, particularly the base and secondary or terminalports, is lodged with the PPA which was created under P.D. No. 504, as amended by P.D. No.857. With respect to municipal ports which are owned by LGUs, a majority of these are also managed or supervised by the PPA.

        There appears to be no clear statutory authority vesting LGUs with the power to control, manage and operate ports within their respective jurisdictions. Section 17 of the Local Government Code provides that LGUs shall exercise and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of basic services and facilities to their constituents.

         Although Sec. 17(e) of the said Code states that national agencies and offices shall devolve to LGUs the responsibilities enumerated in Section 17 (b) thereof, it will be noted from the list of infrastructure facilities to be devolved to LGUs that insofar as ports are concerned, only fishports are to be devolved.

        Aside from the above vague and limited power of LGUs on the management and operation of ports. Sec. 133 of the same Code further provides that unless otherwise provided therein, the exercise of taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays shall extend to the levy of taxes, fees and charges and other impositions upon goods carried into or out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of LGUs in the guise of charges for wharfage, tolls for bridges or otherwise, or other taxes, fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise.

        In view of the vague and limited powers exercised by LGUs over municipal ports that hinder their respective jurisdictions, they are, therefore, deprived of substantial revenues derived therefrom.

        This bill, therefore, seeks to devolve the power and authority in the control, management and operation of municipal ports, including the power or revenue collection, from the Philippine Ports Authority to local government units. Such devolution of authority is in consonance with the declared policy of the State, as embodied in the Local Government Code, that local government units shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.

The Philippine National Maritime Academy (PNMA) or House Bill 6503 as proposed by Representative Rufus Rodriguez, said that it will address the economic and defense requirements of the country, including naval, maritime law enforcement and other maritime trade and maritime education and training development in reference to UN-International Maritime Organization (IMO) Seafarers’ Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) requirements.

House Bill 6503 states that the PNMA will engage in the following academic engagements:

• conferment of bachelor’s degree in Marine Transportation (Major in Ship Management and minor in maritime cyber security or appropriate minor subjects required by the stakeholders);
• conferment of bachelor’s degree in Marine Engineering (Major in Communications, Electrical Engineering, and minor in Maritime Software Development or appropriate subjects required by stakeholders);
• graduates of Philippine National Maritime Academy who are holders of a Bachelor of Science degree will be exempted from taking Operational Level Assessment of MARINA or PRC equivalent but shall undergo validation examinations by the PMMA Academic Board;
• conferment of Post Graduate degrees in Ship Management, and Maritime Education and others to be created by PNMA Graduate Studies Department;
• creation of a Research and Development Department engaged in the Academic Development of the PNMA and the Maritime industry in general, with the said Department shall be headed by a PhD category or MNSA graduate;
• full academic freedom status will be bestowed to PNMA, wherein the Research Department shall monitor its annual academic curriculum growth and requirement with reference to the world economic and shipping trends.

In addition, House Bill 6503 authorizes the PNMA to:

• develop and create curriculathat will fit the needs of the end users and stakeholders in concurrence with UN-IMO-STCW and others regulations;
• share developed curriculum applicable to the maritime education institutions that is doable, realistic, and less expensive to the maritime school owners and training centers;
• ensure the proposed curriculum to be applied is approved and regulated by Commission and Higher Education;
• innovate and develop policies that can be used by the local maritime sector;
• be known as the third official Service Academy for Naval, Maritime Law Enforcement Institutions, Merchant Marine and other maritime related Agencies; maritime engineering, and marine services;
• ensure all students shall receive full scholarships which shall include their expenses for billeting, haircut, laundry, meals, and all uniforms;
• provide monthly cash allowance to all cadets depending on their branch of service and career profession as Navy, Coast Guard, or Merchant Marine;
• ensure the academic curriculum format meets the needs of the following government agencies, private sectors, and the world maritime industry including:
  1. Philippine Navy
  2. Philippine Coast Guard
  3. Philippine National Police Maritime Command
  4. International Shipping and Maritime Industry
  5. International and  National  Maritime  Industry  as  Ship  Surveyors, Shipping or Crewing Managers, Port Managers, Maritime Academic Institution Deans
  6. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
  7. National Mapping Resources Information Authority
  8. Philippine Ports Authority
  9. National Coast Watch Council

CONCLUSION

We have ample Maritime Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders to steer us, but would it not be better if we also passed enabling laws for them to stand on their own with the test of time?

About the Author:

Karl Misa Garcia’s interest in the Maritime Industry goes way back when he was an employee of Asian Terminals, a port operator at the South Harbor Port of Manila. But his interest in everything maritime maybe in his DNA being a son of a former Navy Officer. He also had a stint as a consultant to Senators Biazon and Trillanes. He is a graduate of BS Computer Science from AMA Computer University. He earned his MBA from De La Salle University Graduate School of Business.