5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners, consisting of Manning Associations, Manning Agencies, and their Manning Directors and Presidents, argue that Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199 is unconstitutional for violation of the constitutionally guaranteed due process and equal protection of rights because it unreasonably discriminates against manning agencies. They underscore that the assailed provision treats manning agencies of sea-based OFWs as employers and make them jointly and severally or solidarily liable insofar as the SSS coverages are concerned. Petitioners point out that recruitment agencies of land-based OFWs are not treated in the same manner because they are not considered as employers and are not jointly and severally liable for the SSS coverage. Instead, landbased OFWs are only considered as self-employed members of the SSS. It is only when there is a bilateral labor agreement that the land-based OFW is treated as a compulsory covered member of the SSS. Petitioners emphasize that the law does not provide for any valid justification of the difference in treatment between the manning agencies of sea-based OFWs and the recruitment agencies of land-based OFWs. While petitioners concede that there is a necessity to place OFWs under the compulsory coverage of the SSS, the manner of such coverage must be fair to all parties. They argue that the SSS coverage of seabased OFWs is already provided by the 1988 MOA, 2006 MLC, and the POEA-SEC, thus, Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199 is no longer required. Petitioners also argue that the increased contribution of employers in R.A. No. 11199[7] is too high, which would prejudice the shipping industry in the country, as follows: Share Year of Contribution Implementation Rate Employer Employee 2019 12% 8% 4% 2020 12% 8% 4% 2021 13% 8.5% 4.5% 2022 13% 8.5% 4.5% 2023 14% 9.5% 4.5% 2024 14% 9.5% 4.5% 2025 15% 10% 5% Monthly Salary Credit Minimum Maximum P2,000.00 P20,000.00 P2,000.00 P20,000.00 P3,000.00 P25,000.00 P3,000.00 P25,000.00 P4,000.00 P30,000.00 P4,000.00 P30,000.00 P5,000.00 P35,000.00[8] In its Comment,[9] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Government of the Philippines,[10] countered that the petition failed to comply with the requirement of justiciability to justify the exercise of the Court's power of judicial review. It underscored that the petition is bereft of any allegation that petitioners had suffered actual and direct injury under R.A. No. 11199 because it has not been fully implemented. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 4/28