THE Supreme Court has upheld the mandatory Social Security System (SSS) coverage for all overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and voided a provision requiring them to pay for contributions to obtain an overseas employment certificate (OEC).

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, declared unconstitutional Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act (RA) 11199, or the Social Security Act of 2018.

The provision mandated land-based OFWs to pay their SSS contributions in advance as a prerequisite for securing an OEC — a requirement the court deemed an undue restriction on their right to travel and work abroad.

The ruling was welcomed by OFW groups, including Migrante International, who said the requirement burdened land-based OFWs who were treated differently from their sea-based counterparts.

The high court had reaffirmed the principle that all Filipino workers — whether in the Philippines or abroad — should be part of the SSS system.

Under RA 11199, OFWs are required to contribute to SSS to ensure they and their families receive benefits such as sickness, maternity, disability, retirement, and death compensation.

Sea-based OFWs, who typically work under standardized contracts through recruitment agencies, already have their SSS contributions partially covered by their employers.

In contrast, land-based OFWs — who work under various employment arrangements in different countries — are categorized as self-employed and required to pay both employer and employee shares.

To address this disparity, the Court underscored the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Labor and Employment, and other government agencies to negotiate bilateral agreements with host countries, ensuring that foreign employers also contribute to their workers' social security coverage.

The decision was not unanimous. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, said that land-based and sea-based OFWs should not be treated differently regarding their SSS contributions.

He argued that the real issue lies in the Philippine government's failure to implement mechanisms compelling foreign employers to pay their share.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa opined that requiring land-based OFWs to pay both employer and employee contributions is not discriminatory, as they have the option to collect the employer's share or negotiate for higher wages to compensate for the deduction. However, he supported the Supreme Court's ruling that mandating SSS payments before issuing an OEC does not directly violate OFWs' right to travel.

Dissenting from the majority, Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier argued that requiring SSS prepayments before issuing OECs was a necessary measure to enforce mandatory coverage, especially while the government works on securing labor and social security agreements with host countries.

She acknowledged the burden on OFWs but maintained that ensuring their welfare and that of their families should take precedence.