5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 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] The latest POEA-SEC is covered by the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 010-10, or the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships.[32] According to respondents, such standardized contractual arrangement is possible because all seafarers have similarity or circumstances relating to work.[33] As they are working in the seas, they face the same perils and predicaments in their employment and enjoy the same benefits for their welfare. Thus, whether a seafarer is a chef on a cruise ship, or an engineer in a cargo ship, they are covered by a unified POEA-SEC. The rights and responsibilities of the seafarer, manning agency, and foreign ship owner are consistent and uniform in every POEA-SEC. 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. This is not the first time that the issue of the substantial distinction between the seabased OFWs and land-based OFWs has been raised before the Court. 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 landbased 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. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation based on reasonable classification. And for the classification to be reasonable, it (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 10/28