By MYRA LOPEZ

VARIOUS groups in the maritime industry, particularly the more than 200,000 seafarers and hundreds of manning agencies and maritime schools and training institutes all over the country, have thrown the monkey wrench on the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) after learning that it allegedly bungled its role in facilitating the Philippines' inclusion in the so-called "White List" of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) of countries that complied with the revised Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention.

"If we are not included in the so-called White List, then we have only MARINA to blame," an outspoken leader in the manning industry sector said. "If this happens, we will hound MARINA no end and this will be the agency's worst nightmare because we will be joined by hundreds of thousands of seafarers and their families who will be directly affected by the Philippines' non-inclusion (in the White List)."

It is common knowledge in the maritime industry that the Philippine government has not fully satisfied the IMO panel of competent persons in convincing them on the effectiveness of the country’s report regarding its implementing mechanism governing the global pact.

Instead, the IMO panel of experts outlined a long list of findings requiring immediate explanation and clarification from the Philippine side, mostly borne out of overlapping functions among government agencies involved in maritime affairs and contradicting issuances and directives affecting the maritime industry.

At the heart of the issues raised by the IMO experts is MARINA’s mandate and capability to oversee the maritime labor sector and the legal framework supporting the agency’s claim for jurisdiction.

Questions also abound regarding training, examination and issuance of certificates of competency.

The United Filipino Seafarers (UFS) has been wary over MARINA’s insistence to become the STCW  lead agency, pointing to its various missteps and disservice to seafarers in the past.

UFS president Ramirez said: “MARINA failed miserably in its first mandate which is the promotion of the economic viability of the maritime industry. The government lose hundreds of millions of pesos in its coffers because MARINA failed to register thousands of motorized pumpboats used by fisherman."

He also blamed MARINA for its failure to minimize the maritime disasters when it took over this function from the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). "Marina  failed on their promise to give better services to the seafarers in the issuance of the Seaman’s Identification and Record Book (SIRB). MARINA hampered the promotion of our seafarers as it penalizes skilled and hardworking Filipino seafarers who are promoted by foreign nationals. The only thing that MARINA  is consistent of are failures and penalizing the so–called modern day heroes,” Ramirez continued.

Despite a previous communication to the IMO containing government’s response to its earlier queries on the Philippines STCW report, the former checklist shows  more loopholes in the country’s STCW programs and has given the maritime industry until this month to make-up.

“About 194,000 Filipino seafarers who are remitting $2.6 billion a year will lose their jobs if the country is excluded from the IMO white list,” Ramirez said  and it is the muddling of MARINA  with other government agencies that sows chaos and confusion in the maritime industry.”

The four-page list of clarification and information sought by the IMO from the Philippines devoted two pages on questions on legislation and institutional mandates alone. Some questions raised are:

-- The status of various legislative instruments is unclear. As there appears to be conflicting authorizations in different pieces of legislation to which the IMO panel said that they would appreciate a clear explanation of the hierarchy of various legislative instruments such as Letter of Instructions, Presidential Decrees, Republic Acts, Executive Orders and Rules and Regulations. The government organizations associated with the implementation of STCW 95 also issue their own memorandums, circulars, resolutions and orders. The IMO is confused on the status of these instruments and the memorandum of another.

-- Executive Order No. 396 states that MARINA  is the lead agency for STCW Administration and Executive Order No. 149 which amends EO 396, provides its specific obligations and responsibilities in the administration of the implementation of the STCW Convention.

-- The main responsibilities for the implementation of STCW 95 are contained in Republic Act No.8544. Section 10 of Article IV of this Act provides the duties of the Board for Marine Deck Officers and Marine Engineer Officers of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). IMO panel of experts says that these fourteen duties are the heart of the implementation of STCW. So, how can MARINA  implement  regulations when they have no control or involvement in the development of the rules, suspend or revoke certificates of competency enforce the rules, etc? What authority does Marina have to ensure that PRC, or any other agency carries out its duties properly?

UFS is opposing these two EOs, saying MARINA has no such mandate. Its real mandate is the promotion of the economic viability of the maritime industry which is shipbuilding, shipbreaking, transshipment of cargoes, acquisition of vessels and franchising. It also failed to implement the IMO STCW Convention because the MARINA evaluators do not have the knowledge in the seafaring profession. Most of them are clerks and commerce graduates who have no right to evaluate and assess the knowledge of a Master Mariner or a Chief Engineer.

Capt. Michael Cuanson, a former PRC examiner, said: “Whoever deceived the President to issue the two EOs has done him a great disservice because no person in his right mind will ask the President of the country to write an executive order that runs contrary to the provisions of the law. It is very specific in RA 8544 that the PRC is the endorsing authority of the competency certificate. The work of the executive department is to execute the law and not to split hairs.”

On the same vein, Ramirez observed that Annex No. 1/12, Executive Order 149, page 2, indicates that MARINA will issue jointly with PRC the endorsement attesting the issue of a certificate under the provisions of STCW. He said the question is which agency will be ultimately responsible or accountable for the endorsement if there are problems with it? “It is certain that there will be buck passing and just like in the past, MARINA will easily wash their hands,” he said.

Chief Engineer Rodolfo Aspillaga, for his part, lamented that it is now very clear that the IMO Competent Persons are really competent and it is now very clear that the joint endorsement by PRC and Marina is not the answer to the confusion. He added further that the authorities concerned should get their act together in order to save the county’s bid for the inclusion of the much-coveted “White List.”

When MARINA took over the various function of the PCG, they also took over the standards of maritime safety onboard domestic vessels but during congressional inquiries, they always blamed other agencies for their failure.

UFS said MARINA always dip their hands on the responsibilities of other government agencies despite having no mandate. The PRC certificate of competency and endorsement certificate would be enough since it is the PRC that handles the examination and the evaluation and they have competent evaluators.

On a more urgent note, Ramirez pressed the government to smoothen out the kinks that will prevent the country from being included among the IMO-STCW compliant states. He said the clarifications sought by the IMO panel of experts hangs like the sword Democles that can swipe out from the face of the earth Filipino seafarers who are manning more than 20 percent of the world’s ships.

NEWS