"Perhaps, it is high time for Philippine nationalism to be infused with new blood,
new insights from a sector in Philippine society that has been disenfranchised long enough.
It is about time that Filipinos abroad participated in the body politic on equal footing with
the rest of the nation: small gains from the Filipino diaspora."
Filomenita Mongaya Hogsholm
FFON Public Forum Report
The Hague, The Netherlands
24 November 1997
No other call as this from overseas could have captured as sharply the sentiment of some seven million Filipinos who, among the greater majority, would have preferred to build their lives at home if only they had been given the chance. Pushed into the harsh and cruel world of the international labor market, our Filipino compatriots once more call on us back home. In a collective resolve, they call to reassert their civil and political right to be part of the body politic and participate "on equal footing with the rest of the nation" as they strive once more to rebuild their lives and realize their self-worth.
This talk which I am privileged to deliver to you today is an attempt to respond to that call. May I first thank FFON, Bisig-Nederland, Filippijnengroep Netherlands, the Platform and all the organizers of the Forum for inviting me to participate in this important project.
While you ask me to go into the policiy of the Estrada administration on migrant workers, it would be helpful, perhaps, if we can step back a little and review what was understood to be the Ramos administration's policy on labor migration.
Despite strong denials, the Ramos Administration did pursue an active overseas employment program as a strategy for poverty alleviation and employment generation. As sharply pointed out in the Southeast Asian Regional Conference on Migrant Workers held in Bangkok last year (KAKAMMPI paper presented to the Conference last November 5-6, 1998, Bangkok, Thailand), Philippine overseas migration has evolved into "a pair of crutches for the local economy, serving two main objectives - to ease the unemployment situation and to generate foreign incomes to fuel the faltering economy."
As a result of this policy, the Philippines has "proudly" emerged as the biggest supplier of workers for overseas employment, surpassing its giant neighbors in the East - Pakistan, India and China. With 700,000 annual departures churned by this labor export policy, covering both land and sea-based workers, we have multiplied our global labor strength to a walloping seven million spread in 181 countries.
These seven million Filipinos constitute 10% of our population and almost 20% of our productive age population. According to the POEA data, 4.2 million are classified as overseas contract workers (OCWs) who work on fixed terms of six months to two years. These constitute the bulk of excess labor which the Philippine economy cannot absorb. Considering that the National Statistics Office (NSO) has reported an unemployment rate of 13.3% in early 1998 which remains the same in the first quarter of 1999, this would total some 9.6 million unemployed in a population of 74 million.
Without any effective government domestic employment program as an option to its current overseas employment program, one begins to understand why government policy would prefer to do two things under this situation: one, discourage the seven million from coming home and two, encourage the nine million in leaving home.
Indeed, if there is any concrete Philippine contribution to the global economy, it is the massive influx of human capital vulnerable to all the pitfalls and dangers of the international labor market given the absence of adequate laws protecting their right to tenure to security and tenure.
On the flipside of the labor-export policy coin is the glitter of gold in the form of income remittances from overseas that have kept the country's faltering economy afloat for over a decade now. Government statistics brought out at the Bangkok Conference last year cited OFW remittances as one of the economy's key performance indicators with a total volume of $5 billion infused into the government coffers last 1997. It was argued that this amount could easily double to $10 billion if remittances through non-bankng or informal channels were factored in. Significantly, this amount estimates around 18% of our Gross National Product (GNP) and nearly the same as agriculture's contribution (20%) to GNP.
Perhaps, life would not be half as bad if the Filipino migrant workers who are called the unsung heroes of this decade enjoyed a measure of protection on their rights to work and to security of tenure.
Certain studies made by Atty. Henry Rojas, former legislative consultant in the past Congress, on the Magna Carta for Migrant Workers and on current labor agreements between the Philippines and host countries puts in focus the pathetic inability of government's current migrant labor policies to effectively address the problems of the 4.2 million Filipino workers exposed to the whims and caprice of their employers. The reason is basic.
We do have a Magna Carta for Migrant Workers (RA 8042). There are some existing labor agreements between us and the host countries. But for all intents and purposes, the Magna Carta is unable to protect the migrant workers since host countries do not fall under the law's jurisdiction. Labor agreements should logically complement the migrant law, but it doesn't. Why? Because host governments refuse to give our workers some concessions in protecting their rights for fear that migrant laborers from other countries would demand the same concessions. (see critique by Henry Rojas on RA 8042 and Chapter 8 on existing labor agreements)
The tension between the attraction of migrant income and the failure to protect migrant workers' rights has put government in a tight bind that could snap anytime as its dilemma is compounded by the impact of the Asian crisis on Filipino overseas workers.
In the 1970s, droves of Filipino workers were drawn to jobs abroad because of the high demands in the Middle East, likewise in Europe, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. The Asian economic boom of the late 1980s and 1990s further attracted more migrants from the relatively poor countries of the region.
A study done by Stella Go, revealed that there are around 1.3 million Filipino workers deployed in Asia and Oceania, including over a hundred thousand each in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and close to a hundred thousand in Singapore. The Middle East still remains as the top destination for Filipino workers, especially Saudi Arabia. But lately, i.e., since the late 1980s, the Asian region has become the fastest growing labor market for Filipinos. Departures for Asian countries increased by nearly six times, in a span of ten years. During the same period, departures for other regions expanded by only 10 to 50% (Refer to Table below).
Deployment of Overseas Filipino Workers
* Rounded Figures Source: Stella P. Go. "Towards the 21st Century: Whither Philippine Labor Migration?" Presented at the 1st National Convention, Philippine Migrant Research Network, 6 Feb. 1997, Hotel Rembrandt, Quezon City, Philippines. |
Statistics show that indeed the Asian region has become a critical labor market for Filipino workers. The Asian economic crisis, therefore, has seriously affected Filipino migrants and the Philippine economy as unemployment rises and foreign currency incomes decrease.
In the first months of 1998, deployments in the following countries decreased: Malaysia (62%); Korea (48%); Hong Kong (18%). Within the same period, income remittances of Filipino migrants increased by 0.58% but remittances from Asia declined by 24%. Meanwhile, the following countries conducted sustained crackdowns on illegal migrants and forewarned foreign workers with mass lay-offs. Still, in Hong Kong, domestic helpers are being fired as employers cope with recession.
Undoubtedly, overseas migration has reached a level that is well beyond the capacity of our government to manage, i.e., in terms of providing services and guarantees in mitigating the social cost of migration; and in facilitating the reintegration of returning overseas workers.
Thus, employment opportunities abroad and income remittances for the economy will remain as strong and stubborn arguments in favor of institutionalizing labor export as a basic government policy, until such time that labor policy shall evolved within a framework where human resources are regarded as assets that must be cultivated, honed and strengthened to be part of the over-all program of social and economic development. But any genuine development of workers can endure if the process and decisions in development are actively participated in by the workers themselves.
Largely remaining unprotected and with basic rights systematically violated in most countries that play host to Filipino workers, our migrants have now resorted to "self-help." Over the years, they have formed a variety of organizations, and networks at national and world (regional) levels. In Europe, migrants have pioneered programs and projects for the education of their children, leadership and empowerment trainings and developed alternative livelihood initiatives.
1997 was a significant year for Filipino communities in the Netherlands and in other countries in Europe. On 24 November 1997, the Federation of Filipino Organizations in the Netherlands (FFON) held a forum in the Hague on the issues and concerns of Filipino migrants. Shortly thereafter, on 27-30 November, the Filipino Migrant Conference was convened in Athens, Greece. It was then when two important documents were drafted:
The Filipino Migrant Agenda states the following:
In Europe, Filipino Migrants seek to:
In the Philippines, Filipino Migrants seek to:
In 1998, another significant activity of the Filipino migrants, in the Philippines, was the convening of a forum wherein a group of delegates from the different Filipino migrant organizations presented the Filipino Migrant Agenda to Philippine legislators in the Lower House of Congress. FFON members, I understand, joined lobby activities with Pres. Estrada and with the non-government (NGO) Community.
Parallel to the Filipino Migrant Agenda, the Philippine House of Representatives (with half of its members sworn in only last July, 1998), has also prepared a legislative agenda. In particular, concerns regarding Filipino migrant workers are addressed by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, now chaired by Rep. Lualhati Antonino. Found below is the Committee's proposed legislative agenda in the 11th Congress.
Noticeably, the two agenda -- that of the Filipino migrants and that of the Lower House -- have identified comparable areas of concern. What would be interesting to know though, the specific provisions of each bill that will be authored by members of the House of Representatives. Amendments to R.A. 7157 or Foreign Service Act. The Act covers the deployment, tenure, training, promotions, salaries, evaluation, etc. of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and diplomatic personnel.
Based on 1995 data (Source: Romeo D.C. Candazo, Privilege speech delivered in the Philippine House of Representatives, 25 July 1995), in 168 countries where our 4.2 million migrant workers are deployed, there are only a total of 865 foreign service officers and personnel. Of this number, only 150 are directly concerned with matters of the migrant workers. We have 1 foreign service personnel for every 28,000 overseas workers and a total of 98 overseas labor officers. This means there is one (1) labor officer attending to 42, 857 overseas workers. Although statistics mentioned here are based on 1995 data and the DFA says changes have been instituted by the department, there is still a need for consistent monitoring of the actual deployment of foreign service personnel and their ratio to our OFWs to see if substantial changes have indeed been made.
In the Lower House, HB 7092, authored by Rep. Apolinario Lozada Jr., proposes amendments to RA 7157. The proposed measure intends to redefine and redirect the operation of the Foreign Service by providing a mechanism to address the crosscutting issues of human rights, environment, migration, transnational crimes, trade and investment cooperation agreements and otherwise similar issues.
To improve embassy services, some Filipino migrants have proposed that certain provisions be included in the Act that would: 1) strengthen the service orientation of embassy personnel ; and 2) enable Filipinos overseas to participate in the performance evaluation of embassy staff (Kapisanan ng mga Kamag-Anak ng Migranteng Manggagawang Pilipino [KAKAMMPI], 9 October 1998). Amendments to RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. This has been certified by the Committee as a priority legislative measure. Henry Rojas' detailed critique of this Act is attached herewith. Please refer to it. This Act, however, will have impact only if bilateral agreements are forged with host countries. Amendments to the Philippine Passport Act (RA No. 8239). Rep. Lozada Jr. 's HB No. 4762 is a bill seeks to amend the provisions relating to the requirements for issuance of passports as well as additional grounds for its amendment, suspension and revocation. Furthermore, the proposed bill enumerates the individuals who shall be qualified to file applications on behalf of certain applicants in specific circumstances provided therein. This bill has been approved by the committee on Feb. 10, 1999 and is now for submission to the Committee on Rules. Bills on Absentee Voting. In the Senate, the Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes and Laws now chaired by Sen. Raul Roco, is in the process of deliberating on absentee voting. Sen. Roco has already drafted a consolidated bill and has traveled to Europe and the U.S. to consult with overseas Filipinos.
In the House of Representatives, bills on absentee voting have been drafted in the 9th and 10th Congresses, but were never passed. This representation just filed a bill on absentee voting, which defers from the Senate version in the matters of registration, qualification of voters and manner of voting. Bilateral Agreements. In 1997, during the forum on Philippine International Migration in the Netherlands, the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that the DFA has entered into agreements with the following countries for the protection of Overseas Filipino Workers. Bilateral labor agreements with 8 countries (Jordan, Qatar, Iraq, Libya, Papua New Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Island and Liberia). Together with Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), DFA also concluded joint labor commissions with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and sought to enhance the protection of Filipinos in Malaysia and Korea. Negotiations with 7 governments have also been reported (with Taiwan, Bahrain, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).
Although bilateral agreements have indeed been concluded by the DFA, the report made no mention of the major provisions of these agreements which make them most beneficial to our migrants. Still, in other host countries, where there are a substantial number of Filipino migrants, such agreements are non-existent.
(1) Members of the Philippine Congress,
Should afford Filipino migrants with adequate channels by which they can be heard and consulted regarding identification and prioritization of legislative measures pertinent to them. Authored bill should be responsive to the migrants' needs.
Maintain links and partnerships with Filipino migrants' groups and supportive non-government organizations to:
Consistently monitor implementation and/or non-implementation of approved legislative policies. Members of Congress can better support Filipino migrants' legislative advocacy by exercising the oversight function; and
Judiciously appropriate national budget to the different government agencies dealing with Filipino migrants, e.g., DOLE, DFA.
(2) Filipino Migrants,
Should continue organizing and networking among themselves - there is strength in numbers.
It is high time that they be known as modern day heroes and heroines not mainly because of the dollars they contribute to the national coffers but more because they are a political force to reckon with, a cache of valuable human resource, capable of reshaping Philippine development.
Continue pursuing the goals of the Filipino Migrant Agenda.
Forge strategic alliances with Filipino migrant supporters/symphatizers, elgl, policy-makers, non-government organizations (national and international levels), to strengthen the migrants' legislative advocacy.
As a multisectoral and grass-roots based political party, elected through the pioneering party list system in the House, AKBAYAN promises to take on the cudgels in legislating relevant and responsive laws for our overseas compatriots, involving the broad range of migrant Filipinos - from professionals to domestic helpers and care-givers, to seafarers and contract workers.
But Akbayan can only do this if we can forge the much needed ties that can build and strengthen the network of communication for both sides; from the side of the House of Representatives and from the side of the Filipino migrants; from the side of the migrant NGOs and from the side of the domestic NGOs.
With the initiatives which you had started, I certainly feel that specific members of the House, from both party list and district seats, cannot help but respond. Rest assured that when we go home, we shall carry with us the lessons learned from the series of consultations we shall be having with your communities starting from this Forum.
Thank you.
Do you want us to notify you every time we post a new article on Overseas Filipinos?
If so, please
fill out our form
or send us an e-mail.
