SC Upholds Mandatory SSS Coverage For OFWs But Strikes Down Payment Requirement for OEC

March 26, 2025

Emphasizing the importance of social security protection for all, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that all Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) must be covered under the Social Security System (SSS) as required by Republic Act No. (RA) 11199, or the Social Security Act of 2018. However, the SC declared that requiring land-based OFWs to pay their SSS contributions before obtaining an Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC) is unconstitutional.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC En Banc declared unconstitutional Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 11199 (IRR) requiring advance payment of SSS contributions as a precondition for the OEC. The SSS, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, and Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) are permanently prohibited from implementing the requirement.

Under RA 11199, all workers, including OFWs, must contribute to SSS to receive benefits. For sea-based OFWs, their manning agencies cover the employer’s SSS contribution. However, land-based OFWs are considered self-employed, so they must pay both employer and employee shares. To fix this, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), DOLE, and other relevant agencies must negotiate bilateral social security and labor agreements with host countries to make foreign employers pay their share.

In the meantime, under the IRR, if a land-based OFW’s host country has no agreement in place, they must pay their SSS contribution before getting an OEC for deployment.

Migrante International and other petitioners challenged the law and its IRR, claiming they discriminate against land-based OFWs. They argue that land-based OFWs should not be treated as self-employed or required to pay their employer’s share since they have foreign employers. They also claim that requiring the payment of SSS contributions for the issuance of an OEC is unfair and restricts their right to work and travel.

The SC partly granted their petition. It upheld the validity of the mandatory SSS coverage of all OFWs but invalidated Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR, requiring OFWs to pay in advance their contributions for the issuance of the OEC.

RA 11199 requires all Filipino workers, including OFWs, to have SSS coverage for protection against disability, sickness, the hazards of maternity, old age, death, and loss of income. This ensures financial security for workers and their beneficiaries during unexpected hardships.

All OFWs, whether land-based or sea-based, have the right to social security.

“[Mandatory social security coverage] is especially beneficial to OFWs, who leave their families behind to work abroad. Aside from enduring separation from their loved ones, OFWs often face harsh working conditions, including long hours, excessive workloads and inadequate safety measures. Through coverage in the SSS, OFWs and their beneficiaries are safeguarded…”

The State must consider differences in employment conditions when enforcing social security laws. Sea-based OFWs have standard contracts, allowing recruitment agencies to cover their SSS contributions. In contrast, land-based OFWs work under different arrangements, and without social security or labor agreements between the Philippines and host countries, there is no way to require foreign employers to pay their share. This makes land-based OFWs responsible for the full contribution, not as a discrimination but as a practical necessity.

However, social security policies must be fair. Thus, the SC clarified that land-based OFWs cannot be forced to pay SSS contributions before getting an OEC. Instead, RA 11199 places the responsibility on the DFA and the DOLE to secure agreements that ensure proper collection. The law allows less burdensome ways to enforce contributions, such as negotiating social security and labor agreements.

Tying OEC issuance to SSS payments unfairly burdens OFWs who have not yet started work or received salaries. This contradicts the principle of protecting workers’ rights.

The SC also ruled that this violates the right to travel for land-based OFWs, as lacking the OEC significantly restricts their ability to travel abroad.

“To truly honor the sacrifices of our OFWs, often hailed as modern-day heroes, it is crucial to refrain from oppressive policies that unfairly burden them.”

In his Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice (SAJ) Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that the current collection of SSS contributions through the issuance of OECs under the IRR unfairly shifts the financial burden onto land-based OFWs to compensate for the lack of labor and security agreements. However, he stated that there should be no distinction between land-based and sea-based OFWs regarding their compulsory coverage and SSS contributions. The real issue, he said, lies in the lack of a legal mechanism to require foreign employers to pay their share – a system the State must establish. Forcing land-based OFWs to cover their employer’s share, he added, is discriminatory.

In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa agreed that requiring land-based OFWs to pay both employee and employer contributions is not discriminatory. Nothing in the law requires land-based OFWs to shoulder their employer’s contribution since they can collect it from them or negotiate a higher salary to cover it. However, he held that requiring SSS contributions for the issuance of an OEC does not violate the land-based OFWs’ right to travel as they are not prevented from leaving the country.

Finally, in her Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier argued that the payment of SSS contributions as a precondition to the issuance of OECs is a valid and efficient way to ensure compulsory coverage before deployment while waiting for social security or labor agreements with host countries. She acknowledged that while this imposes a burden on workers, it is essential to protect their welfare and that of their families. She emphasized that the lack of agreements should not prevent the State from giving social security protection to all land-based OFWs. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Resolution. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Resolution in G.R. No. 248680 (Migrante International, et al. v. Social Security System represented by Carlos G. Dominguez III, in his capacity as Chairman, et al.) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-migrante-international-feliza-b-benitez-et-al-vs-social-security-system-represented-by-carlos-g-dominguez-iii-in-his-capacity-as-chairman-aurora-c-ignacio-et-al/; the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-separate-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/; the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/; and the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/248680-dissent-justice-amy-c-lazaro-javier/.