5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly As shown above, despite the mandatory SSS coverage under the 1988 MOA of the SSSDOLE, 2010 POEA-SEC, and 2006 MLC, foreign principal employers and manning agencies do not comply with their obligation. There are still thousands of seafarers deployed who are not covered by the SSS, and foreign principal employers and manning agencies are not paying their SSS contributions. Hence, Congress found that the best solution to resolve the failure to report the seafarers for SSS coverage is to, once and for all, make the seafarer's SSS coverage mandatory under the law. In that manner, the foreign principal employers and manning agencies are jointly and solidarily liable under R.A. No. 11199 to ensure that they will report their seafarers to the SSS and pay their contributions. Failure to comply with the law shall lead to different sanctions. This is the decree employed by Congress to give significant effect to the constitutional mandate of the State to afford protection to labor, whether local or overseas.[48] Likewise, the apprehension of petitioners that the law places the burden of the SSS coverage entirely upon the shoulders of manning agencies because they are treated as employers is more illusory than real. Evidently, Sec. 9-B(b) of R.A. No. 11199 treats manning agencies of seafarers as employers only for the purpose of enforcing their solidary liability with the principal foreign ship owners. The law is anchored on the existing law and regulations. This is to guarantee the SSS coverage of the seafarers. Again, Sec. 9-B(b) of R.A. No. 11199 clearly states that manning agencies are mere "agents of their principals." They are only treated as employers for the exclusive purpose of enforcing their solidarity liability with the foreign principal employer in favor of the seafarers, including claims arising from SSS coverage. This mechanism was deemed sufficient by Congress to ensure that seafarers would be fully protected under their social security coverage. Manning agencies are sensibly covered by R.A. No. 11199 when their joint and several liability with the principal foreign ship owner is invoked. Contrary to petitioners' argument that manning agencies are unnecessarily saddled with the SSS obligations, they still have available recourses under the Civil Code against their solidary obligors, particularly, the foreign principal shipowners. The law is reasonable because it is bereft of any provision that absolutely and unequivocally transfers the entire responsibility of the SSS coverage to the manning agencies alone. It simply found an innovative method to utilize the existing solidary liabilities of the parties involved in the hiring of sea-based OFWs to enforce the mandatory coverage of the SSS. There is no automatic criminal liability against officers of manning agencies. Petitioners likewise argue that Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199 violates the managers, officers, owners, or directors of manning agencies' right to substantive due process when it imposes criminal liability on them for the crimes that others, such as the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 18/28