5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this case, the Court finds that petitioners may seek direct relief because of the existence of two of the exceptions, particularly: (1) that this case is of first impression; and (2) that present issue involves public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice. The assailed law concerns the welfare of OFWs, the modern-day Filipino heroes, and the grant of social protection in their favor. For the first time, the social security membership and contributions of OFWs, specifically, the seafarers, are mandated by law. Indeed, the Court must ensure that this social security must be for the welfare of the seafarers and, at the same time, not unduly oppressive to other stakeholders, such as the manning agencies and foreign ship owners. Accordingly, the petition should be discussed on its substantive aspect. Substantive Matters When a law is questioned before the Court, the presumption is in favor of its constitutionality. To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unmistakable breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one.[22] Moreover, the reason courts will, as much as possible, avoid the decision of a constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins on each department a proper respect for the acts of the other departments. In line with this policy, courts indulge the presumption of constitutionality and go by the maxim that "to doubt is to sustain." The theory is that, as the joint act of the legislative and executive authorities, a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally enacted.[23] It is a basic axiom of constitutional law that all presumptions ate indulged in favor of constitutionality and a liberal interpretation of the Constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted. Thus, if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, the same should be upheld. Consequently, the burden is squarely on the shoulders of the one alleging unconstitutionality to prove invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt by negating all possible bases for the constitutionality of a statute. Verily, to doubt is to sustain.[24] R.A. No. 11199 was enacted, among others, to extend social security protection to Filipino workers, local or overseas, and their beneficiaries.[25] Sec. 9-B(a) states that OFWs shall have compulsory coverage by the SSS. Sec. 9-B(b) states that manning agencies are agents of their principals and are considered as employers of sea-based OFWs which make them jointly and severally or solidarily liable with their principals with respect to the civil liabilities therein. On the other hand, the recruitment agencies of land-based OFWs are not considered as agents of their principals, and thus, are not jointly and solidarily liable for the SSS contributions. Petitioners chiefly argue that this different treatment between sea-based OFWs and land-based OFWs violate the equal protection of laws under the Constitution. They assert that it is unfair for manning agencies, who are not the employers of the seafarer, to be solidarily liable for SSS contributions. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 8/28