QuestionsQuestions (Republic Act No. 9940)
The resolution cites the Philippine government’s accession to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Standard of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 (STCW-78) Convention, and its preconditioned purpose of maximizing the country’s share in the world maritime labor market by training and upgrading seafarers.
The resolution states that pursuant to Letter of Instructions (LOI) No. 1404, the Maritime Training Council (MTC) was created and established to give effect to the IMO STCW-78 Convention.
The resolution lists: POEA, OWWA, PRC, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), MARINA, BHE (representing DECS at the time), and a Private Sector Representative. They are described as member agencies participating in and cooperating with the Council.
The resolution identifies BHE’s prior functions as (1) accreditation/revocation of training permits based on MTC-developed standards and (2) imposing sanctions for violation of accreditation conditions.
It explains that BHE previously collected training permit fees as an inherent power under DECS, and argues that these functions needed to be assumed by MTC after BHE’s abolition.
The resolution states that CHED’s mandate under R.A. 7722 covers public and private higher education institutions and degree-granting programs, and therefore CHED may not be able to assume BHE’s earlier accreditation/revocation and fee-collection functions for maritime training centers aligned with STCW-78.
It characterizes MTC as a policy-making body with its own STCW-78-related standard training program prescribed by IMO model courses, implying that MTC’s regulatory authority is not the same kind of mandate as CHED’s education-degree-focused functions.
It states that while TESDA is empowered to design and administer training programs, and integrate certain agencies (NMYC and BTVE), TESDA does not include MTC among the agencies affected by its organization; thus, TESDA may not be able to supervise and regulate maritime training centers under the MTC’s STCW-78 standards.
Because the resolution argues that under LOI 1404, MTC is vested with powers to develop and prescribe training standards, formulate rules and regulations to implement STCW-78 and LOI 1404, and to prescribe and collect fees from seamen training centers; hence it follows that MTC should assume BHE’s functions on accreditation and fee collection.
It requests enjoining CHED and/or TESDA to allow MTC to collect training fees and directly supervise and regulate the establishment and operations of all maritime training centers and institutions offering STCW-78 related courses.
The resolution states that direct supervision and regulation, including accreditation and fee collection, will strengthen MTC’s capability to finance its own operation and thus effectively implement the STCW-78 Convention.
It argues that neither CHED nor TESDA has a clear supervisory and regulatory mandate over MTC, and that MTC’s STCW-78 standard training framework requires a dedicated policy-making and regulatory authority.
The resolution refers to accreditation/revocation of training permits as part of quality assurance and compliance enforcement under MTC standards; previously, these were exercised by BHE until its abolition.
The resolution bears signatures from the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (Chairperson, MTC), administrators/commissioners from POEA, OWWA, CHED, MARINA, and a private sector representative, and it was attested by a POEA director and an undersecretary of DOLE. This suggests coordinated inter-agency governance consistent with an administrative council structure.
It was adopted on 3 May 1995. The adoption date is relevant to determine effectivity and to establish when the administrative body issued its request/position regarding regulatory authority and fees.
From the wording—“the MTC hereby requests enjoining the CHED and/or TESDA”—the resolution appears to be primarily a request/appeal for inter-agency allowance rather than a standalone rulemaking that directly alters the regulatory regime. In law school terms, it reads as an administrative position statement seeking action based on asserted LOI-based powers.