As an archipelagic nation of over 7,000 islands, the Philippines is a major player in the global maritime industry. Its strategic location in Southeast Asia makes maritime law – or admiralty law – essential in governing sea-based trade, shipping, navigation, and marine resource management. The maritime laws of the Philippines provide a robust legal framework that upholds safety, sustainability, and fair trade across the nation’s waters. As the global maritime industry continues to evolve – especially in areas such as green shipping, digital navigation, and offshore energy – Philippine maritime regulations must adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

Read on to gain more understanding about a comprehensive overview of Philippine maritime laws, the regulatory agencies involved, and the protection of rights and obligations of seafarers, shipowners, and maritime stakeholders.

1. Coverage of Maritime Laws in the Philippines

Maritime law, also known as admiralty law, governs activities and relationships that occur on or involve navigable waters. In the Philippines, it covers a wide range of areas such as:

• Ship registration and ownership
• Crew employment and seafarer rights
• Marine environmental protection
• Maritime commerce and transport
• Admiralty jurisdiction and maritime claims

These areas ensure safety, environmental protection, and compliance with both local and international maritime standards.

2. Major Philippine Laws Governing Maritime Activities

Several key statutes form the foundation of Philippine maritime regulation, including:

3. Key Regulatory Agencies in the Philippine Maritime Sector

The following government agencies are primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing Philippine maritime laws:

These agencies collaborate to ensure compliance with both local and international maritime regulations.

4. Philippine Maritime Jurisdiction and Zones

Under UNCLOS in general, the Philippines exercises various levels of sovereignty over its maritime zones. The Philippine Maritime Zones Act defines the maritime zones under Philippine jurisdiction, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution and UNCLOS. The Act delineates the following zones:

• Internal Waters – Waters on the landward side of the baselines, over which the Philippines exercises full sovereignty and control.
• Archipelagic Waters – Waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, subject to certain navigational rights under international law.
• Territorial Sea – Extends 12 nautical miles from the baselines, where the Philippines exercises sovereignty, subject to the right of innocent passage.
• Contiguous Zone – Extends up to 24 nautical miles, allowing enforcement of laws relating to customs, immigration, and sanitation.
• Exclusive Economic Zone – Extends up to 200 nautical miles, granting sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources.
• Continental Shelf – Extends to the outer edge of the continental margin or 200 nautical miles, with possible extension in certain regions.

These maritime zones are critical for defining fishing rights, oil exploration, and environmental enforcement within Philippine waters.

5. Seafarers’ Rights and Welfare

The Magna Carta of Filipino Seafarers provides comprehensive protection for Filipino seafarers, both overseas and domestic. Its coverage includes:

• Overseas Seafarers: All Filipino seafarers working on ships plying international waters, whether Philippine-registered or foreign-registered.
• Domestic Seafarers: Principally covered by the Labor Code, but also by specific provisions of the Magna Carta, such as rights, duties, emergency rescue, manning levels, inspection, and training.
• Exclusions: Warships, government ships not in commercial operations, traditional ships, and fishing vessels.
• Alignment with International Conventions: The Act aligns with the Maritime Labor Convention 2006 and the STCW Convention.
• Regulation of Manning Agencies: The Act mandates the regulation of manning agencies, establishes grievance mechanisms, and provides for the repatriation and reintegration of seafarers.
• Implementation: The Act emphasizes the role of various government agencies in implementing these provisions and sets penalties for violations.

6. Dispute Resolution and Admiralty Jurisdiction

Maritime disputes – such as ship collisions, cargo damage, or charter disagreements – are governed by both national courts and arbitration mechanisms.

• Regional Trial Courts (Admiralty Courts) has the original jurisdiction over maritime and admiralty claims, including in rem actions and ship arrest; may direct PPA/PCG/MARINA to assist in custody and to prevent sailing.
• MARINA and PCG exercise administrative jurisdiction for regulatory violations. MARINA exercises quasi-judicial powers with administrative remedies. PCG conducts PSC inspections for safety, pollution prevention, and verification of crew standards; may assist DMW/DOLE in detaining vessels with gross labor or safety violations.
• DMW/DOLE/NCMB/NLRC for seafarers’ labor and employment disputes. Onboard/onshore grievance mechanisms (shipboard and company-level) are mandatory first steps. Then conciliation-mediation; unresolved cases may go to compulsory or voluntary arbitration under the Labor Code.

These mechanisms ensure efficient and specialized resolution of maritime conflicts.

7. Jurisprudence on Maritime Law

A. Piracy and Maritime Offenses

The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of piracy under both the Revised Penal Code and special laws. Notably:

“Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed “in Philippine waters.” On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including ‘a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters.’ Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the law.” — People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709 (2001)

B. Social Security and Seafarers

The Supreme Court has upheld the compulsory coverage of sea-based Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) under the Social Security System, recognizing the special status and needs of seafarers in international law and domestic policy, viz:

“The 2016 POEA Rules provides that manning agencies are jointly and severally liable with the principal employer for any and all claims arising out of the implementation of the SEC involving seafarers. Necessarily, this includes claims arising out of the SSS coverage and contributions in favor of seafarers. If the principal foreign ship owner fails to pay the SSS contributions, then the joint and several liability of the manning agencies can be invoked. xxx 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.” — Joint Ship Manning Group v. SSS, G.R. No. 247471 (2020)

C. Liability of Vessel Owners

The doctrine of limited liability in maritime law confines the liability of the carrier to the value of the vessel, its equipment, and freight, reflecting the real and hypothecary nature of maritime law. This principle is rooted in both domestic and international maritime practice. — derived from Aboitiz Shipping v. General Accident, G.R. No. 100446 (1993)

D. When the Limited Liability Rule Does Not Apply

In Phil-Nippon Kyoei, the Court rejected the invocation of the limited liability rule to defeat contractual liabilities owed to seafarers under the POEA-SEC, distinguishing such obligations from the shipowner’s real-and-hypothecary liability tied to the vessel itself, viz:

“TEMMPC and TMCL cannot raise the defense of the total loss of the ship because its liability under POEA-SEC is separate and distinct from the liability of the shipowner. To disregard the contract, which has the force of law between the parties, would defeat the purpose of the Labor Code and the rules and regulations issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in setting the minimum terms and conditions of employment for the protection of Filipino seamen. The CA noted that the benefits being claimed are not dependent upon whether there is total loss of the vessel, because the liability attaches even if the vessel did not sink. Thus, it was error for the NLRC to absolve TEMMPC and TMCL on the basis of the limited liability rule.” — Phil-Nippon Kyoei, Corp. v. Gudelosao, G.R. No. 181375 (2016)

In sum, the maritime laws of the Philippines establish a solid legal foundation for a safe, sustainable, and globally competitive maritime industry. With the country’s strong adherence to international conventions and continuous policy reforms, stakeholders – from shipowners to seafarers – can navigate Philippine waters with confidence.

Disclaimer: This material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Portions of this content may have been generated with AI assistance.

Need Legal Assistance with Maritime Law?

Our firm provides expert legal advice and representation in matters involving shipping regulation, maritime contracts, seafarer claims, vessel registration, and admiralty disputes.

Contact us today for guidance on navigating the complex landscape of Philippine maritime law and ensuring full compliance with both local and international standards.