Basketball in the Olympics and the Philippine team

DATELINE: AUGUST 14, 1936 - The championship for the first basketball competition was held at the Olympic Games in Berlin, Germany. The U.S. defeated Canada, 19-8. The tournament was played between 7 August and 14 August 1936 in Berlin, Germany. 23 nations entered the competition, making basketball the largest tournament of the team sports.The International Basketball Federation, which is the governing body of international basketball, used the 1936 tournament to experiment with outdoor basketball.A total of 199 basketball players from 21 nations competed at the Berlin Games.

It is significant to note that the Philippine Basketball team made a fifth-place finish in the 1936 Summer Olympics, the best performance by a team outside the Americas, Europe and Oceania. the The Basketball Association of the Philippines (BAP) which was also formed in 1936) sent a team nicknamed "the Islanders" that participated in the first Olympic basketball tournament . With the tournament under a single-elimination tournament from the third game onwards, the Philippines won their first three games only to face the United States in their fourth game. The USA doubled the Philippines' score as they advanced to the next round. The Philippines wound up fifth place in the best finish by an Asian team in Olympic basketball history. Philippines defeated  Uruguay for fifth place with the points  33-23. The Philippines finished with a win-loss record of 4-1 and placed 5th overall. The country has participated in  seven Olympic Basketball Tournaments.

 The philippines won a bronze medal that year for athletics by Miguel White for  Men's 400m Hurdles

Men's medals:
Gold medalists	United States
Silver medalists	Canada
Bronze medalists	Mexico

						Philippine Team Roster: Berlin, 8 August 1936. Men's basketball match between Mexico, 3rd, and the Philippines (30-32) at the Games of the XI Olympiad. Credit: IOC/Olympic Museum collections Charles Borck Antonio Carillo Jacinto "Jumping Jack" Ciria Cruz Franco Marquicias Primitivo Martinez Jesus Marzan Amador Obordo Bibiano Ouano Miguel Pardo Ambrosio Padilla John Worrell Fortunato Yambao Head Coach: Dionisio "Chito" Calvo An article narrated the story of the Philippines
						Philippine National Basketball Team In The 1936 Olympics The Philippines participated in the first basketball tournament in the history of the Olympic games during the 1936 Berlin edition where basketball was played outdoors on lawn tennis courts ( which was terribly hampered by a bad rainy weather) and there were still no seats for spectators. Dr. James Naismith, acknowledged as the inventor of the beautiful game of basketball, was present at the Berlin Olympic basketball competitions and handed out the medals to the winning basketball teams. The 1936 Philippine Olympic basketball team, then widely known as the Islanders, was coached by Dionisio Calvo and represented by 6'1" Charles Borck, Jacinto "Jumping Jack" Ciria Cruz, Franco Marquicias, Primitivo Martinez, Jesus Marzan, Amador Obordo, Cebu basketball legend Bibiano Ouano, Ambrosio Padilla (team captain who later became a Senator), and Fortunato Yambao. John Worell was also listed but was unable to play a single basketball match. The Philippine basketball team draw a bye on the first round of the 1936 Olympic basketball competitions so they got right into the second round. Winners of the first round also advanced to the second round while losers play in the first consolation round. Winners in the first consolation round would go on to the second round while losers get eliminated. In the second round, the Philippines defeated first round winner Mexico, 32-30 to advance to the third round while relegating Mexico to the second consolation round. In the third round, The Philippine basketball stars outplayed Estonia, 39-22 advancing to the fourth round and eliminating Estonia. The United States and Peru drew byes in the third round. The Philippine basketball team faced a tough task in the fourth round of the 1936 Olympic basketball competitions as they had to beat the Americans to advance to the next round. The Filipinos however were clobbered, 56-23, thanks to the dominance of 6-foot-8 behemoth Joe Fortenberry. With the loss, the Philippines dropped out of medal contention in the 1936 Olympic basketball event. The United States went on to win the gold medal. Canada got the silver and Mexico, the basketball team that previously lost to the Philippines in the earlier stages won the bronze. In the preliminary matches of the classification stage for 5th to 8th places, The Philippines and Uruguay emerged victorious. Philippines defeated Italy, 32-14 while Uruguay defeated Peru by forfeiture. In the match for 5th place, Philippines defeated Uruguay, 33-23 and claimed the highest finish by any Asian basketball team in the Olympics to date.

When will Philippines ratify Maritime Labor Convention 2006?

Even if the Philippines boasts itself as a major supplier of global maritime labor,   President Benigno Aquino II is "noynoying" in ratifying  the  so called international magna carta for seafarers rights which will soon  take into effect. With one more country to go, it seemed that President Aquino is  espousing a lukewarm attitude in being one of the of the first thirty ratifying countries required for the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 (MLC2006) to take effect.

With the deposit to the ILO of the ratification documents of the MLC 2006 by Cyprus    last July 20, 2012 , 29 member States of the International Labour Organization (ILO) have now ratified this important Convention, which sets out minimum standards and fair working conditions for seafarers worldwide. While the first requirement for entry into force of the Convention – coverage of 33 per cent of the world gross tonnage – has already been attained, the ratification iby Cyprus s an important step towards achieving the second requirement: 30 ratifying countries. It is expected that the remaining 1 ratificiaion will be obtained before the end of 2012, indicating that the MLC, 2006 will enter into force in 2012.

 

The convention was already ratified by 29 countries/ states, to wit: Liberia (June 7,2006), Marshall Islands (September 25, 2007 ), Bahamas (February 11,2008), Panama (February 6, 2009), Norway (February 10, 2009) , Bosnia and Herzegovina (January 18, 2010) , Spain (February 4, 2010), Croatia (February 12, 2010) , Bulgaria (April 12, 2010) , Canada (June 15, 2010),Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (November 9, 2010) , Switzerland (February 2, 2011), Gabon (May 12, 2011) Benin (June 13, 2011), and Singapore ( June 15, 2011). Denmark (June 23, 2011) Latvia (August 12, 2011)_ Antigua and Barbuda (August 11, 2011) , the Government of Luxembourg (19 September 2011), Kiribati (24 October 2011) Netherlands (December 2011) Australia (14 December 2011), Tuvalu (February 16, 2012) Saint Kiss and Nevis (February 21, 2012), Togo (March 14, 2012) Poland (May 3, 2012), Palau (May 29, 2012), Sweden (June 12, 2012) and Cyprus (July 20, 2012)

Ratification is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of the convention concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the contracting states to examine the convention more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties/conventions are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government other than that which negotiated them. Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government, as the case may be, through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed.

In the Philippine jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. The MLC 2006 will become valid and effective if concurred in by two-thirds of all the members of the Senate (Section 21, Article VII, 1987 Constitution.) This means it forms part of Philippine law by virtue of transformation. By an act of the legislature, the convention rules may be transformed into Philippine law, to be applied or enforced as part of Philippine law.

The MLC 2006 is an important new Convention that was adopted by the International Labour Conference of the ILO at a maritime session in February 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland. It sets out seafarers’ rights to decent conditions of work and helps to create conditions of fair competition for shipowners. It is intended to be globally applicable, easily understandable, readily updatable and uniformly enforced. The MLC , 2006 has been designed to become a global legal instrument that, once it enters into force, will be the “fourth pillar” of the international regulatory regime for quality shipping, complementing the key Conventions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS), the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, 1978, as amended (STCW) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 73/78 (MARPOL). Between 1920 and 1996, a total of 39 Conventions, 29 Recommendations and one Protocol concerning seafarers have been adopted by the ILO.

The MLC contains a comprehensive set of global standards, based on those that are already found in 68 maritime labor instruments. It modernizes the global standards to: (a) set minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship; (b) address conditions of employment, accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection; (c) promote compliance by operators and owners of ships by giving governments sufficient flexibility to implement its requirements in a manner best adapted to their individual laws and practices; and (d) strengthen enforcement mechanisms at all levels, including provisions for complaint procedures available to seafarers, shipowners’ supervision of conditions on their ships, the flag States’ jurisdiction and control over their ships, and port State inspections of foreign ships.

The new Convention will likely achieve the aim of near universal ratification because the Convention was adopted by a record vote of 314 in favour and none against (two countries abstained for reasons unrelated to the substance of the Convention), after nearly two weeks of detailed review by over 1,000 participants drawn from 106 countries.

Countries that ratify the Convention will require ship owners to put the standards in place before allowing seafarers aboard. And ratifying countries will have the right to inspect vessels for compliance before port calls are allowed. The Convention gives these countries the right to deny ships that are not compliant from sailing onwards. This applies to ships regardless whether the countries they are registered in have ratified the Convention or not.

The Philippines will definitely be one of the major beneficiaries of this convention. The Philippines is considered as the major supplier of maritime labor globally. Per Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) data, there were 330,424 Filipino seafarers deployed abroad in 2009 comprising almost 30 percent of the global maritime labor force. Although the number of deployed Filipino seafarers has decreased from 2006 (274,497), 2007 (266,553) to 2008 (261,614), the dollar remittances have been constantly increasing from US$1.9B in 2006, US$2.2B in 2007 , US$3B in 2008, US$3.4B in 2009 to US$3.8B in 2010. On the other hand, the Philippines as a flag State has a registered fleet comprising around 1.4% of total world tonnage.

Given the vast Philippine coast line (twice the size of the United States and nearly three times more than China), Filipinos have natural maritime instincts that place them at an advantage over other nationalities. Foreign shipowners are known to prefer Filipino seafarers for equally important qualities: dedication and discipline, industry, flexibility, loyalty, English language fluency, adaptability, positive work attitude, law-abiding, and problem-solving capability.

The Philippines can benefit from ratifying the Convention as a labour supplying state, flag or port state. The maritime labour convention is a good reference point for the Philippine’s formulation of laws and policies responsive to the conditions and contexts of seafarers. Ratification can serve as basis for technical assistance.

When the Philippines does ratify the Convention, for example, manning agencies are mandated not to deploy seafarers aboard ships that don’t follow the new Convention. On the other hand, if the Philippines does not ratify, ratifying countries will not allow Filipinos aboard their ships – unless the Philippine government certifies that manning companies are complying with the new standards relating to wages, social security and so on. The disadvantage non-ratification by the Philippines is that shipowners will have to bear the responsibility for checking the Convention’s requirements on the recruitment and placement of the seafarers.

As the foremost seafarer-supplying country and a flag State with a registered fleet comprising around 1.4% of total world tonnage, it behooves upon Philippine social partners and stakeholders to determine the passage most beneficial to our national interests. It is now incumbent upon the Philippine government to ratify MLC2006 in order that it will be one of the thirty ratifying countries required for the convention to take effect

Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006 ratification delayed by the SC CJ Corona impeachment case

Stakeholders are apprehensive that the delay in the ratification of the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 (MLC2006) is imminent in view of the ongoing impeachment complaint against Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona.

With the pending impeachment case, the Senators will find a hard time in the ratification process of MLC 2006 due to the demanding hours imposed on them. The impeachment complaint was filed last December 12, 2012 by members of the House of Representative against SC Justice Corona in accordance with the provisions of Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, on the grounds of: (a) Betrayal of Public Trust; (b) Culpable Violation of the Constitution; and (c) Graft and Corruption

.

The Senate implemented a new legislative schedule in order to balance its task as legislator and as an impeachment court handling the impeachment case. Prior to the start of the impeachment trial, the Senate had been conducting legislative sessions three times a week from Monday to Wednesday but the chamber cut it to two to give way to the impeachment proceedings. They later decided to hold legislative sessions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays instead of Mondays and Tuesdays. Senators want to dedicate Monday to caucus, while Thursday and Friday will be a free time for them and during which they can review pleadings and transcripts of the proceedings.

This political development is seen as setback to the calls of stakeholders in the maritime industry that it is now incumbent upon the Philippine government to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 (MLC2006) in order that it will be one of the thirty ratifying countries required for the convention to take effect.

With the deposit to the ILO of the ratification documents of the MLC 2006 by Australia last December 14, 2011 , 22 member States of the International Labour Organization (ILO) have now ratified this important Convention, which sets out minimum standards and fair working conditions for seafarers worldwide. While the first requirement for entry into force of the Convention – coverage of 33 per cent of the world gross tonnage – has already been attained, Singapore’s ratification is an important step towards achieving the second requirement: 30 ratifying countries. It is expected that the additional 8 ratifications will be obtained before the end of 2012, indicating that the MLC, 2006 will enter into force in 2012.

The convention was already ratified by 26 countries/ states, to wit: Liberia (June 7,2006), Marshall Islands (September 25, 2007 ), Bahamas (February 11,2008), Panama (February 6, 2009), Norway (February 10, 2009) , Bosnia and Herzegovina (January 18, 2010) , Spain (February 4, 2010), Croatia (February 12, 2010) , Bulgaria (April 12, 2010) , Canada (June 15, 2010),Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (November 9, 2010) , Switzerland (February 2, 2011), Gabon (May 12, 2011) Benin (June 13, 2011), and Singapore ( June 15, 2011). Denmark (June 23, 2011) Latvia (August 12, 2011)_ Antigua and Barbuda (August 11, 2011) , the Government of Luxembourg (19 September 2011), Kiribati (24 October 2011) Netherlands (December 2011) Australia (14 December 2011), Tuvalu (February 16, 2012)  Saint Kiss and Nevis (February 21, 2012), Togo (March 14, 2012)   Poland (May 3, 2012)

Ratification is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of the convention concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the contracting states to examine the convention more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties/conventions are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government other than that which negotiated them. Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government, as the case may be, through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed.

In the Philippine jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. The MLC 2006 will become valid and effective if concurred in by two-thirds of all the members of the Senate (Section 21, Article VII, 1987 Constitution.) This means it forms part of Philippine law by virtue of transformation. By an act of the legislature, the convention rules may be transformed into Philippine law, to be applied or enforced as part of Philippine law.

The MLC 2006 is an important new Convention that was adopted by the International Labour Conference of the ILO at a maritime session in February 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland. It sets out seafarers’ rights to decent conditions of work and helps to create conditions of fair competition for shipowners. It is intended to be globally applicable, easily understandable, readily updatable and uniformly enforced. The MLC , 2006 has been designed to become a global legal instrument that, once it enters into force, will be the “fourth pillar” of the international regulatory regime for quality shipping, complementing the key Conventions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS), the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, 1978, as amended (STCW) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 73/78 (MARPOL). Between 1920 and 1996, a total of 39 Conventions, 29 Recommendations and one Protocol concerning seafarers have been adopted by the ILO.

The MLC contains a comprehensive set of global standards, based on those that are already found in 68 maritime labor instruments. It modernizes the global standards to: (a) set minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship; (b) address conditions of employment, accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection; (c) promote compliance by operators and owners of ships by giving governments sufficient flexibility to implement its requirements in a manner best adapted to their individual laws and practices; and (d) strengthen enforcement mechanisms at all levels, including provisions for complaint procedures available to seafarers, shipowners’ supervision of conditions on their ships, the flag States’ jurisdiction and control over their ships, and port State inspections of foreign ships.

The new Convention will likely achieve the aim of near universal ratification because the Convention was adopted by a record vote of 314 in favour and none against (two countries abstained for reasons unrelated to the substance of the Convention), after nearly two weeks of detailed review by over 1,000 participants drawn from 106 countries.

Countries that ratify the Convention will require ship owners to put the standards in place before allowing seafarers aboard. And ratifying countries will have the right to inspect vessels for compliance before port calls are allowed. The Convention gives these countries the right to deny ships that are not compliant from sailing onwards. This applies to ships regardless whether the countries they are registered in have ratified the Convention or not.

The Philippines will definitely be one of the major beneficiaries of this convention. The Philippines is considered as the major supplier of maritime labor globally. Per Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) data, there were 330,424 Filipino seafarers deployed abroad in 2009 comprising almost 30 percent of the global maritime labor force. Although the number of deployed Filipino seafarers has decreased from 2006 (274,497), 2007 (266,553) to 2008 (261,614), the dollar remittances have been constantly increasing from US$1.9B in 2006, US$2.2B in 2007 , US$3B in 2008, US$3.4B in 2009 to US$3.8B in 2010. On the other hand, the Philippines as a flag State has a registered fleet comprising around 1.4% of total world tonnage.

Given the vast Philippine coast line (twice the size of the United States and nearly three times more than China), Filipinos have natural maritime instincts that place them at an advantage over other nationalities. Foreign shipowners are known to prefer Filipino seafarers for equally important qualities: dedication and discipline, industry, flexibility, loyalty, English language fluency, adaptability, positive work attitude, law-abiding, and problem-solving capability.

The Philippines can benefit from ratifying the Convention as a labour supplying state, flag or port state. The maritime labour convention is a good reference point for the Philippine’s formulation of laws and policies responsive to the conditions and contexts of seafarers. Ratification can serve as basis for technical assistance.

When the Philippines does ratify the Convention, for example, manning agencies are mandated not to deploy seafarers aboard ships that don’t follow the new Convention. On the other hand, if the Philippines does not ratify, ratifying countries will not allow Filipinos aboard their ships – unless the Philippine government certifies that manning companies are complying with the new standards relating to wages, social security and so on. The disadvantage non-ratification by the Philippines is that shipowners will have to bear the responsibility for checking the Convention’s requirements on the recruitment and placement of the seafarers.

Out of the nine (9) IMO conventions where the Philippines is a signatory, it has ratified only four (4) conventions, namely SOLAS, STCW, MARPOL, and SUA. On the other hand, out of the twenty seven (27) ILO conventions, the Philippines has ratified only seven (7) conventions, namely No. 23 - Repatriation of Seamen (1926), No. 53 -Minimum Requirement of Professional Capacity for Masters and Officers on Board Merchant Ships , No. 76 – Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Revised (1949) ; No. 138- Minimum Age for Admission to Employment; No. 165 - Social Security for Seafarers and No. 179 -Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers, (1996) and No. 185 - Seafarers' Identity Documents (2012).

The Philippine Instrument of Ratification on ILO C185 (Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention) was recently deposited last January 19, 2012 at the ILO Headquartes in Geneva. This convention provides seafarers with a valid seafarers' identity document that will facilitate their entry into ports for temporary shore leave or when joining their ship or transferring to another ship.

As the foremost seafarer-supplying country and a flag State with a registered fleet comprising around 1.4% of total world tonnage, it behooves upon Philippine social partners and stakeholders to determine the passage most beneficial to our national interests. It is now incumbent upon the Philippine government to ratify MLC2006 in order that it will be one of the thirty ratifying countries required for the convention to take effect.

Seafarers’ REMITTANCE: Savior of Philippine economy

In overseas employment the discussion of wages does not end in questions like how much or when one will be entitled to it or how much deductions there should be. The issue of wages in overseas employment is more extensive than those questions and the word “remittance” always comes into the picture. Remittance is the amount or portion of the foreign exchange earnings sent by the worker to the Philippines. 

In the Philippines, everyone knows that OFW remittances, including those of Filipino seafarers,  have become the lifeblood of the economy, allowing the country to survive through prolonged political crises and instability. Simply put the country’s economy is saved from eventual collapse by the remittances of Filipinos working and residing overseas. This is a stark reality that all Presidents and their different sets of economic managers know for a fact, and take pains to hide from the general public. The Philippine government, since the time labor export was institutionalized in the Marcos years to the present, cannot do without the remittances of migrant Filipinos and the revenues it derives from the fees that it gets from them before they leave the country.

Comparative Total OFW, Land-Based and Sea- Based Remittances From 2003 to 2010 (In Thousand US$)

	Total OFW	Land-based	Sea-based	Sea-based %
2003	7,578,458	6,280,235	1,298,223	17.13 %
2004	8,550,371	7,085,441	1,464,930	17.13 %
2005	10,689,005	9,019,647	1,669,358	15.61%
2006	12,761,308	10,812,018	1,949,290	15.27 %
2007	14,449,928	12,213,565	2,236,363	15.47%
2008	16,426,854	13,392,301	3,034,553	18.47%
2009	17,348.052	13,947,640	3,400,412	19.60%
2010	18,762,989	14,956,881	3,806,108	20.28%
Source: BSP

                  The Philippines is considered as the major supplier of maritime labor globally. Per Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) data, there were 330,424 Filipino seafarers deployed abroad in 2009 comprising almost 30 percent of the global maritime labor force. Although the number of deployed Filipino seafarers has decreased from 2006 (274,497), 2007 (266,553) to 2008 (261,614), the dollar remittances have been constantly  increasing from US$1.9B in 2006, US$2.2B in 2007 , US$3B in 2008, US$3.4B in 2009 to US$3.8B in 2010. As of 2010, the seabased sector’s remittance comprise at least 20% of the total dollar remittances of OFWs. No specific reason can be identified in the increase in dollar remittance despite the drop of supply globally in 2007 and 2008. But perhaps it is a result of increase in the salaries of the seafarers, on one hand, or the more aggressive “remittance” attitude of the Filipino seafarers, on the other hand.

Comparative Total Seafarer s Deployment and Sea- Based Remittances

From 2003 to 2009 (In Thousand US$)

	Total Seafarers Deployment	Sea-based Remittances	Growth Rate Sea-based
2003	216,031	1,298,223	8.26%
2004	229,002	1,464,930	12.84%
2005	247,983	1,669,358	13.95%
2006	274,497	1,949,290	16.77%
2007	266,553	2,236,363	14.73%
2008	261,614	3,034,553	35.7%
2009	330,424	3,400,412	11.04%
Source: BSP

Under the revised POEA Standard Employment,  the seafarer is required to make an allotment which shall be payable once a month to his designated allottee in the Philippines through any authorized Philippine bank..The agency shall provide the seafarer with facilities to do so at no expense to the seafarer. The allotments shall be paid to the designated allottee in Philippine currency at the rate of exchange indicated in the credit advice of the local authorized Philippine bank. Their “allotments” do not go directly to their beneficiaries but are coursed through their manning agencies as middlemen, who disburse in pesos the seafarer’s monthly earnings to the allottee-family.

The allotment shall be at least eighty percent (80%) of the seafarer’s monthly basic salary. Generally, there are two modes of sending remittances available to seafarers, through formal (banking)  and informal (door-to-door) channels.

a.  Through formal (banking) channels, the seafarer  would bring his/her hard-earned wages in whatever currency to the bank which shall transmit it its branch in the Philippines specified by the seafarer. The inflow of remittances through formal channels are reported by all banks to the Central Bank, that in turn tallies this as part of the country dollar reserves, the same reserves that are used to show the IMF, World Bank and other international funding agencies the country’s capacity to pay its debts

b. On the other hand,  through informal channels (door-to-door) mode  is actually an increasingly extensive network of informal money remitters that is also called the padala system. This system is based on personal couriers (usually friends and relatives) who deliver money door-to-door. In many cases, this mode is faster, cheaper and is more flexible with regard to time and proximity to seafarers  and their dependents, especially in the urbanized areas of the
Philippines.

Efforts to improve on the types and coverage of global remittance networks are giving more overseas Filipinos more opportunities for money transfers using innovative financial services including web-based systems, automated teller machines (ATMs), and reloadable or reusable cash cards. Increased capture of money transfers has also been made possible with the expanded offering of financial products and services to overseas Filipinos by banks and other financial institutions that have established more tie-ups with foreign service providers.

In a sense, the greater proportion of remittances recipients for  saving and investing is good for the economy because the multiplier effects can be significant in the future.  Savings and investments increase the pool of resources available to both households and corporate borrowers for their credit needs. That helps sustain economic activity in the country

A significant new provision in the Migrant and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, R.A. 8042 ( as amended by R.A. 10022)   is its provision stating that the remittances of  Filpino seafarers  , shall be exempt from the payment of documentary stamp tax. The removal of the documentary stamp tax or DST on all funds wired home by seafarers would help drive down money transfer charges, and put more cash in the pockets of those receiving remittance.

 

A common problem in connection with remittance is the issue on who will be his allottee. An allottee  is any person named or designated by the  seafarer as the recipient of his/her remittances to the Philippines

A wife of a contract worker cannot force the agency to remit to her account more than what is allowed by the worker. What is required by law is to implement and enforce the required inward remittance of the workers’ salaries to the Philippines and not to see whether or not the full amount of the remittance is received by the dependents of its workers. The mandatory remittance required by law does not divest the right of an overseas worker over his hard earned money or earnings. A worker earned salary or wage is his exclusive property; the matter of its disposition is his alone and his employer cannot interfere on how salary should be divided and to whom the salary should go.  The employment contract is the bilateral agreement between the seafarer and his principal, as represented by the manning agency Like any personal property he can freely dispose or give to anybody without other limitations than those provided by law. The law requires the inward remittance of the 80 % of his basic salary to the country, for it contribute to the economy. But not the manner or as to how he will divide nor dispose it. His right to dispose his wage remains in his discretion. 

            One legal recourse of the wife is the filing of a civil case for support. Once the court grants the petition, the said court order should be given to the manning agency and attached to each POEA standard employment contract.  This will serve as a notice to the seafarer that failure to comply will have legal consequence. The manning agency is likewise bound to abide by said order for the allocation in favor of the wife. 

Nevertheless, a Filipino seafarer can be  held criminally liable and be subjected to sanctions due to the act of abandoning his  financial obligation to persons to which he is  obliged by law to support. Under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act , which was promulgated March 08, 2004, “economic abuse”  can be committed against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode.” 

Popularly known as VAW, the said law defined "Economic abuse" as any act that makes or attempts to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in

2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;

If convicted under this law, the seafarer shall be punished by prision mayor, or imprisonment of a minimum of  six years  and one day to a maximum of twelve years.  He shall also shall pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00).   The court may likewise  expedite the process of issuance of a hold departure order once the case is filed.