Philippines
Statement of the Center for Migrant Advocacy
to the Senate Public Hearing convened by the Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources Development
31 July 2006
To inquire, in aid of legislation, into the resolution filed by Senator Richard Gordon, P.S. Resolution 515 entitled “Resolution Calling for an Inquiry in Aid of Legislation on the Plans and Resources of Concerned Government Agencies for the Repatriation of OFWs in Lebanon
CMA welcomes the proposed resolution of Senator Gordon. We also welcome this public hearing convened by the Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources Development to shed light on the on-going repatriation plans.
Having said that, we put forward the following points for the consideration of the committee:
Funds for the Emergency repatriation of OFWs
CMA takes the position that the Philippine government should provide adequate funds to ensure the safe and prompt repatriation of distressed OFWs in war-torn Lebanon and Israel, if and when necessary, regardless of where these funds will come from.
Section 15 of RA 8042 and Section 59 of its IRR state that the OWWA, in coordination with appropriate international agencies, shall undertake the repatriation of workers in cases of war, epidemic, disasters or calamities, natural or man-made, and other similar events … an emergency repatriation fund is created which shall be under the administration, control of supervision of OWWA. Moreoever, the fund shall consist of an initial amount of P100M, which shall be taken from the OWWA funds.
Thereafter, such fund shall be provided for in the GAA from year to year. Provided, that the amount appropriated shall be in no case less than P100 M, inclusive of outstanding balances.
In cases where the cost of repatriation shall exceed P100M, the OWWA shall make representation with the Office of the president for immediate funding in excess of said amount.
From these provisions, we can clearly see which agency of government is in charge (OWWA) and who ensures (Office of the President) that there is sufficient funds to undertake the immediate repatriation of our distressed OFWs in Lebanon.
However, as of the last time (way much earlier, before the violence escalated in Lebanon) we inquired from OWWA about the funds, OWWA Administrator Roque said that the initial P100M had already been used up and that OWWA has been advancing further requests for repatriation costs of distressed OFWs.
Our questions:
Full accounting of the Emergency Repatriation Fund
We would like to see a full accounting of the disbursement of the P100M plus purportedly spent by OWWA for repatriation.
As the manager of the emergency repatriation fund with sole power over it, we would like to inquire if OWWA has made the proper notification/ advice to whichever is the appropriate agency to request for its replenishment through the GAA.
In the current situation, has OWWA already made representation with the Office of the President for the much needed funds? Has Malacanang released any funds to this effect?
Ambassador Bichara was quoted saying that until the present time, he has not received monies from any agency in Manila for the repatriation procedure. Instead, he was advised (by DFA??) to use whatever existing funds the embassy has for its emergency operations. It was also reported in the media that OWWA in fact has released some monies, but not to the ambassador, but to the welfare officer in country.
We would like to be clarified on the matter.
Who is in Charge?
One-Country team Approach
RA8042 Section 28 states that under the One-Country team Approach, all officers, representatives and personnel of the Philippne government posted abroad regardless of their mother agencies shall, on a per country basis, act as one country-team with a mission under the leadership of the ambassador.
Our Questions:
If from the previous section, OWWA is supposedly the one in charge, where does OCTA come in?
To our understanding, the following are currently involved in handling the situation in Lebanon:
- Ambassador Bicharra and embassy staff; Honorary Consul in Syria
- POLO – Labor Attache Manalo and Welfare Officer
- MEPT – Ambassador Roy Cimatu and Team
- Coming in to help are the other staff and personnel of POLOs in the Middle East e.g. Riyadh Labor Attache Resty deLa Fuente (former director of OWWA) and Welfare officer Mario Antonio – designated as Lebanon evacuation team leaders
From the head office in Manila:
- DFA OUMWA Undersecretary Esteban Conejos Jr and Staff
- OWWA under Administrator Roque
From among them, who is in charge? How are they coordinated? How do they make the decisions?
Government Policy on Evacuation
We would like to know what exactly is the government policy in regard to repatriation from Lebanon. Is it still on a voluntary basis? Is it, as Usec Conejos said, “ …If they don’t show up at the time of evacuation, it means that they have made a decision that it’s best for them to stay behind…”
But not showing up at the time of evacuation does not automatically mean that the OFWs opted to stay. Perhaps they failed to show up because they did not know where it is. Perhaps, their employers have not allowed them to leave and, yet, the employers are hesitant or refuse to feel responsible for them. There may be a host of other reasons other than merely not wanting to go home.
CMA believes that the government must exercise due diligence and be pro-active in its action. Hence, we would like to know the actions taken by our post and our government in informing each and every OFWs in Lebanon of their dire situation, their options, as well as the plans of government. Then, and only then, can government say that it has exercised due diligence.
The current situation also brings to the fore the importance of having an updated registry of OFWs in the post that contains basic information on the whereabouts of the OFWs.
Government Policy on Labor Migration
To promote or not to promote labor migration?
Government, on one hand, declares that it does not promote labor migration as a development strategy. On the other hand, it consistently sets an annual deployment target of one million OFWs. This “policy” trend seems to be borne out year after year, emphasizing the government’s unstated, yet forcefully implemented, policy of making labor migration as a centerpiece of its economic development agenda.
Another point that may validly be raised in respect of this policy is government preparedness in addressing the myriad concerns inherent in the labor migration phenomenon. If not for anything else, this Lebanon experience highlights the policy, methodology and attitudinal vacuum of this, and even the previous governments.
As a necessary consequence of this question, we have to raise doubts about the government’s attitude, program and implementation of its “reintegration” policy. Case in point: Following the President’s visit to Saudi Arabia, it was reported that the government reassured several hundreds of distressed OFWs who have been repatriated that they would be given government assistance in finding jobs here. More relevant to the present crisis in Lebanon, our government seems to be making the same promises to those facing repatriation.
For a start, CMA would like to know how many of those who came home from Saudi have been assisted with new jobs locally.
We trust that something concrete will come out of this hearing.
Thank you.
Center for Migrant Advocacy Philippines*
72-C Matahimik Street, Teachers’ Village
Quezon City, Philippines
Email: cma@tri-isys.com
URL: www.pinoy-abroad.net
Telefax: +632 4330684
Telephone: +632 920 5003
*CMA is a member of the Migrant Forum in Asia (www.mfasia.org);
the Philippine Migrants Rights Watch (www.pmrw.org); and,
Network Opposed to Violence Against Women Migrants (NOVA)
***
