On the shores of sacred seas

I am amused at the viral satiric posts and memes on social media regarding the “nationality” of the different species of fishes swimming in the West Philippine Seas. Earlier, the Senate President gave his thoughts on Chinese fishermen within our Exclusive Economic Zone, pointing out a possible issue on exclusivity in the underwater, as the fish could be coming from China and the fish from the Philippines could be going to China. One comment notes that most of the common fishes have Chinese names like Tu Na, Bi Ya, and Ga Lung Gong, while Lapu-lapu and Bangus are definitely Filipino.

Indeed, a comic relief from what appears to be a serious problem arising from what some quarters claim to be a unilaterally and unconstitutionally “expanded” Chinese fishing grounds encroaching on our own Exclusive Economic Zone in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I was initially tempted to research on this issue, but I find it too basic that if it is our “Exclusive” Economic Zone, the Chinese fishing boats should not operate in the area to the prejudice of Filipino fishermen, unless the arrangement is perhaps covered by a fair and mutually beneficial agreement between the two countries.

But there are significant events under the leadership of the current Senate President more interesting than the migration of fishes. The very recent Republic Act 11210, known as the “105-Day Expanded Maternity Leave Law,” was hailed by women’s groups as a tangible realization of the Magna Carta of women mandating protection for women’s rights to health and decent work. The enactment of the law is an acknowledgement that the maternal function is a social responsibility, thus the need to institutionalize “a mechanism to expand the maternity leave period of women workers to provide them ample transition time to regain health and overall wellness as well as to assume maternal roles before resuming work.”

Prior to this law, the maternity leave benefit in the Philippines was limited to 60 days for normal deliveries and 78 days for caesarian section deliveries, which is a far cry from what developed countries provide, like Finland’s 1,127 days (161 weeks), Japan’s 406 days (58 weeks), or Canada’s 364 days (52 weeks). It is obvious however that these countries want to encourage their citizens to procreate because of their dwindling population, which is the exact opposite in our case as the Philippines is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. It is interesting to note that the United States of America does not have a federal law mandating paid maternity leaves for expectant mothers, although some states do have some form of maternity benefits.

A quick look at the maternity leave laws of our neighboring countries shows Malaysia granting 60 days paid leave benefits; Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia, a more generous 90 days; Myanmar with 98 days; Brunei and Laos, 105 days; and Singapore, 112 days. With Republic Act 11210, our working mothers are now assured of a comparable maternity leave benefit package.

The new law, principally authored by women legislators of the Seventeenth Congress, provides that covered female workers in government and the private sector, including those in the informal economy, regardless of civil status or the legitimacy of her child, shall be granted 105 days maternity leave with full pay for both normal or caesarian deliveries, with an option to extend for an additional 30 days without pay. This leave can be credited as combinations of prenatal and postnatal leave as long as it does not exceed 105 days and provided that compulsory postnatal leave shall not be less than 60 days. If the worker also qualifies as a solo parent under the Solo Parents’ Welfare Act, she shall be granted an additional fifteen (15) days maternity leave with full pay.

But while the State shoulders in full the monetary benefits for workers in the public sector, the Social Security System (SSS) and the private employers would have to contribute in the monetary benefit for female workers in the private sector. It is stipulated that – “Employers from the private sector shall be responsible for payment of the salary differential between the actual cash benefits received from the SSS by the covered female workers and their average weekly or regular wages, for the entire duration of the maternity leave, with the following exceptions, subject to the guidelines to be issued by the Department of Labor and Employment…”

 It was reported that as of April this year, the new maximum monthly salary credit is now P20,000 and by January 2020 the maximum maternity financial assistance of SSS will increase to P70,000, which is more than twice the previous maternity benefit of P32,000. The law also allows the covered female worker to allocate up to seven days of said leave benefits to the child’s father. This benefit is over and above what is provided in the “Paternity Leave Act of 1996.” Should the beneficiary female worker die or is permanently incapacitated, the balance of her maternity leave benefits shall accrue to the father of the child or to the qualified alternate caregiver.

It is also explicitly provided that the maternity leave benefit shall be enjoyed by the employee even if she has a pending administrative case, and the availment of the same shall not be used as basis for reduction of rank, status, salary, demotion in employment or termination. No employer shall discriminate against the employment of women in order to avoid the maternity leave benefits and violations of the law shall be punished by a fine of not less than P20,000 nor more than P200,000, and imprisonment of not less than six years and one day nor more than 12 years or both. The violation could also be a ground for non-renewal of business permits.

The evident improvement of the maternity leave benefit is, without doubt, laudable. In a country where family and parenthood are top priorities, there could be no valid objection to the betterment of a mother’s situation by providing her a longer period for recuperation and to take care of the newborn, without diminution of income.  Yet, it is equally important for the Government not to lose sight of the fact that the increase in the period of paid leave would necessarily have an adverse economic effect on private sector employers. Other than advancing the maternity benefits to their covered employees, they would have to hire substitutes for a longer period while waiting for the return of the covered employee.

To soften the impact on operational costs, the Government may look at the possibility of granting special additional tax deductions commensurate to the yearly maternity leave availment of covered employees, or promoting an affordable maternity insurance plan to make the covered employee not totally dependent on the mandated maternity leave benefit.

Better yet, the SSS should maximize its maternity financial package so that the State should also pay in full the covered employees in the private sector similar to their counterparts in the public sector. On the part of the returning employee, no less than love of her work, loyalty and concern for her employer’s interest, should make the synergetic employer-employee relationship ideal and lasting.