PRESS RELEASE
Migration and development should be rights-based and people-centered
Statement of Philippine Migrant Groups and Advocates for the UN High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development
September 14-15, 2006
On the occasion of the United Nations High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, we, the Philippine migrant civil society groups, reassert that-- the recognition, respect and protection of the human rights and well-being of all migrant workers must stand at the core of migration and development frameworks and policies crafted and implemented by both sending and receiving countries.
As one of the top three sending countries of migrant workers, the Philippines is widely recognized as a global model on migration management. This is due mainly to laws that have been passed regarding migrant workers. These are: Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), Republic Act 9208 (The Anti-Trafficking Law), Republic Act 9198 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act).
Institutions were also set up to implement these laws: the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA), Embassies, Consulates and Philippine Overseas Labor Offices (POLOs) abroad, the Department of Foreign Affairs’ Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant Workers’ Affairs (OUMWA) and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), among others.
A closer look at these measures and as to how they are enforced will, however, bare deep-seated problems. In these provisions, glaring inconsistencies are revealed in the various stages of the labor migration process. Examples are sections 29 and 30 of R.A. 8042 which call for the deregulation of recruitment activities and the phase-out of the regulatory functions of POEA. As it stands, many recruitment agencies do not follow deployment criteria and processes provided by law.
We lament such inconsistencies, especially in the areas of monitoring and enforcement of pro-migrant worker provisions. Government initiatives to address the problematic areas of migration remain muddled. What was initially implemented as a stop-gap measure to address the rising unemployment, poverty, and the need for foreign exchange in the 1970s has systematically evolved into both a lucrative industry and development strategy of the Philippine government. These are indicative of the Philippine government’s mindset that advocates the commodification of migrant workers, thus the unabashed institutionalization of labor export.
Undoubtedly, labor migration has scored some positive results. Migrant worker households have increased their respective purchasing power and were able to improve their access to education and health services. At the same time, national and local economies have benefited from foreign exchange, job generation and huge remittances. But at what cost are we paying for these benefits?
As a mobile population, migrant workers are usually vulnerable to class, race and gender-based oppression and discrimination. The affront against their basic rights and human dignity has become a global issue. Xenophobia and racism against migrants, refugees and other foreigners have entered mainstream international political and public discourse. These problems weigh upon the migrant workers who are already saddled with poor working conditions and exploitation by abusive employers.
Measures to prepare migrant workers to the working environment of receiving countries remain flawed. For one, Pre-Departure Orientation Seminars (PDOS) even exhorts workers to be submissive at times when their individual rights are already threatened. Despite apparent conflict of interests, private recruitment agencies are also conducting PDOS for those they have recruited for deployment.
The OWWA Fund has not been maximized to benefit the migrant workers. Upon leaving the country, Filipino migrant workers are left to fend on their own. The US $25 contribution to the OWWA Fund that is supposed to be paid by respective recruitment agencie is shouldered, instead, by the migrant workers. With an estimated 3,000 OFWs deployed every day, the OWWA Fund amounts to Php 1 billion a year, 60 percent of which goes to OWWA’s operating expenses.
There are over eight million OFWs spread out across 193 countries in six continents. Yet there are only 81 government institutions abroad set up to respond the OFWs’ needs. There is an obvious lack of human and logistical resources to support OFW’s welfare. Problematic also is the obvious lack of empathy and the bad attitude of some government personnel posted abroad towards the OFWs. Stories abound of OFWs in distress, especially victims of gender-based violence, who seek assistance from these posts and receive cold or rude treatment by assigned government personnel or labor attaches.
Another social cost of labor migration are the effects of long periods of separation from their loved ones. Children of migrants are emotionally orphaned at a young age. Many marital relationships break down. Dependence on OFW remittances upsets the lifestyles, values and consumption patterns of families left behind.
For the OFWs who return home for one reason or another, the reintegration program advertised by the Philippine government is not comprehensive and systematic given the volume of returned migrant workers. Simply put, returnees are greeted with the domestic unemployment crisis and are forced to go back to square one of the Philippine labor export process.
The Feminization of Labor Migration
Women comprise the large majority—70 percent--of newly deployed migrants. They also comprise the majority of those working as domestic workers and entertainers –jobs that are vulnerable to abuses and exploitation because they are not covered by labor and social laws in may countries. There is also a large number unaccounted for in this figure—those victimized in the trafficking of women. Every year, thousands of Filipinas are trafficked to work in bars, brothels and factories under horrendous situations. Inefficient law enforcement and corruption permit traffickers to operate with impunity.
Philippine Government Response
Rather than being proactive, government efforts are reactive in protecting and promoting the welfare and human rights of migrant workers and their families. The Philippine government’s capacity in all of the stages of migration has been outpaced by its aggressive deployment of Filipinos for overseas employment.
The Philippine government has not engaged in proactive lobby for labor and social protection of OFWs in destination countries. The bilateral agreements that the Philippine government has forged with receiving countries are geared more towards increased access to labor markets. These agreements are basically silent on migrant worker protection.
Government targets an annual one million migrant labor deployment. Many laws against illegal recruitment are not implemented because of lack of transparency or political will. In addition, the several task forces that have been formed to prevent illegal recruitment are ineffective due to multiple, uncoordinated and overlapping structures.
We believe that the current international frameworks--the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development and the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families--are the most comprehensive thus far in terms of ensuring rights-based and people-centered development. We urge the government to revise and enforce national laws to completely conform to these international standards.
Labor export cannot be enshrined as an employment and development strategy. It is not only unsustainable, it is unjust and immoral. We reiterate that:
- Development should not be at the cost of the rights and well-being of migrants and members of their families.
-
Migration should not be a core development strategy for the Philippine government—it is every government’s responsibility to provide its people with decent livelihood and jos.
-
The government should not use remittances to bankroll national development requirements without the full engagement and participation of migrants in the whole development process.
-
Governments should ensure a gender sensitive approach to development and in the management of migration, which include: (1) the right to integrity of body and soul, in particular the right to be free from all physical, psychological, and sexual violence; (2) the right to be free from gender-based discrimination; (3) the right to obtain reproductive health services and to obtain appropriate assistance in the event of sexual and gender based violence.
Migrant workers are human beings, they are not commodities. We must never sacrifice their civil and political rights in favor of anti-people neoliberal economic paradigms.
***
Presented to the Philippine government representatives on August 31, 2006 at the DFA – OUMWA office by:
Center for Migrant Advocacy Philippines
Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation Inc.
Kanlungan Center Foundation Inc.
Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (ECMI)
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women – Asia Pacific (CATW-AP)
***
