IMO questions Marina's role in STCW implementation

International Maritime Organization (IMO) has cast doubts on the role of the Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) in the implementation of the revised Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention since the local shipping body has no control or involvement in the development of the rules, supervision or revocation to enforce and issue this vital seafarers' document.

Other than jointly issuing the endorsement together with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), the IMO questions Marina's authority to ensure if PRC or any other agency involved in maritime training carries out its duties properly.

In a letter to the Philippine government through the embassy in London, IMO secretary-general William O'Neil seeks clarification for various issues in the country's amended STCW Report based on the valuation conducted by IMO's 'panel of competent persons." The evaluation is a pre-requisite to the Philippines bid to make it to the IMO's white list of recognized training institutions for seafarers worldwide.

Being 'the lead agency' for STCW implementation as stated in Executive Order No. 396, Marina remains the 'Administration whose responsibilities are listed in EO 149, another Malacañang order that amended EO 396.

But the main responsibilities of the implementation of STCW 95 are contained in Republic Act No. 8544, the law that lists the duties of the Boards for Marine Deck Officers and Marine Engineer Officers. These 14 duties are the 'heart' of the implementation of STCW 95, according to IMO, which notes that the two boards under section 11 are under the control of the PRC.

While EO 149 indicates that Marina will issue along with PRC the endorsement under the provisions of STCW, IMO noted the absence of an agency that will be accountable if problems arise.

Further inconsistency comes with the existence of Marina memo circular no. 129 and 130, which provide for the issuance of STCW certificates and Republic Act 8544, which states that issuing certificates is a function of the PRC. This is also the same with TESDA Order No. 120 series of 1999, which sets the policies and rules for the implementation of Occupational Qualification and Certification System that governs the training. "If PRC and TESDA issue the certificates, why does Marina have rules for the issuance of certificates," the IMO asks.

The fear is that these conflicting laws might cause a setback in the country's inclusion to the white list. These points of clarification being raised by the IMO have been tackled in Executive Committee meetings prior to the submission of the report.

The Office of the President issued several EOs just to prop up support for Marina to get a share of the STCW endorsement function, which under existing law (RA 8544) has no right to do so.

The IMO also questions Marina's memo circular no. 130 of Nov. 9, 1999, which provides rules for the issuance of certificates for existing seafarers and defines it as the Administration. The memo circular, which goes on to state that existing seafarers who have not been certificated and endorsed under the 1978 convention may be certificated (by Marina) under the circular provided the qualification requirements are complied with.

The IMO now wants Marina to explain why this memo circular was issued and where the authority for Marina to issue certificates can be found.

As a result, the UN body wonders why Marina and PRC issue requirements for the issuance of certificates that are different, prompting it to further querry if one agency's circulars take priority over another. "If so, which one?"

Most of the clarifications and information sought from the Philippines concern legislation. The IMO commented that the status of these various legislative instruments is unclear.

At the same time, rules and regulations implementing EO 149 mandate that endorsements should be signed by the PRC chairman and Marina administrator. However, the sample certificates shown in Annex No. 3 of the Philippine report indicate that only the administrator will sign the endorsement.

Also included in that annex (3/110 to 3/113) are examples of certificates issued by Marina to ratings. The IMO now asks "under what authority does Marina issue these certificates?"

Learning of the embarrassing clarifications IMO forwarded to the Philippine government, some members of the STCW Executive Committee felt that the government had been hoodwinked by the last minute changes Marina made in the amended report, like the claim that "only the (Marina) administrator will have to sign endorsement."

The clarifications being asked by the IMO has reached 23 items including aspects on examination and issuance of certificates, an improvement from 42 since the panel deliberated on the previous evaluation in 1998.

However, the second set of clarifications banks more on the questions of the root cause of the problem of implementation due to intramurals between state agencies that have been made worse by an entity that wants to assert its participation which by law is not entitled to any.