5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The OSG also argues that there is no violation of the equal protection clause because there is a substantial distinction between land-based and sea-based OFWs. It underscored that unlike land-based OFWs, all seafarers have one standard contract which provides for the rights and obligations of the foreign ship owner, seafarer, and the manning agency. Seafarers are also required to be competently trained and qualified before being able to work on a ship. Due to these distinctions, they are properly classified separately from land-based OFWs. Further, it avers that this classification is germane to the purpose of the law because even if seafarers and landbased OFWs are differently situated, they both must be granted utmost social security protection. The OSG further emphasizes that the joint and several liability of manning agencies with foreign ship owners under Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199 are mere reiterations of the imposition under existing laws and regulations, particularly, No. 20, Rule II, Part I, and Section 4(F)(3), Rule II, Part II of the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (2016 POEA Rules), and Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, as amended. Thus, even before the passage of R.A. No. 11199, manning agencies were already held jointly and severally liable with the foreign ship owners, which liability includes SSS contributions under the 2010 POEA-SEC. Lastly, the OSG argues that increasing the rates of contributions is an act of the State in the exercise of its police power, and it is primarily for the general welfare of the OFWs, which cannot be considered an infringement of the existing contracts of manning agencies and foreign ship owners. In its Comment/Opposition,[11] the SSS, as represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC),[12] argues that: petitioners did not present an actual case or controversy in their petition; they did not have locus standi; they violated the hierarchy of courts; they failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the matters raised in the petition can be disposed of by applying the 2018 SSS Law and not nullifying the same; and petitioners are not entitled to an injunctive relief. The Court's Ruling The petition lacks merit. Procedural Matters The power of judicial review is the power of the Courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. For a court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be met, namely: (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 5/28