August 2, 2006 · Posted in: Civil Society, Governance, In the News, Migrant Workers Issues
OFWs’ questions on gov’t evacuation policy, repatriation fund beg for answers
EXPECTING to get answers to their questions about government’s evacuation policy for Filipinos in war-torn Lebanon and the status of emergency repatriation funds, migrant workers and their families instead continue to grope in the dark after invited executive officials did not show up at a scheduled Senate hearing last Monday.
Welcoming the public hearing convened by the Senate Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources Development to shed light on the ongoing repatriation plans, the Center for Migrant Advocacy (CMA) said it had anticipated the inquiry as a venue for putting on the table the concerns of overseas workers, particularly lingering questions regarding the following:
- status of the Emergency Repatriation Fund (ERF)
- who is in charge of handling the situation in Lebanon
- government’s policy on evacuation and labor migration
On the issue of the repatriation fund managed by the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA), CMA wants a full accounting of the disbursement of the P100M or more purportedly spent by OWWA for repatriation. In a statement read at the Senate hearing, it said:
“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 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
“In the current situation, has OWWA already made representation with the Office of the President for the much needed funds? Has Malacañang released any funds to this effect?
“Ambassador (Al Francis) 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 the Department of Foreign Affairs??) 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.”
The creation of the ERF is mandated under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) 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, Ellene Sana, CMA executive director, said that it is clear 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 Marianito 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,” she said.
Sana also maintained that the Philippine government should provide adequate funds to ensure the safe and prompt repatriation of distressed OFWs in Lebanon and Israel, if and when necessary, regardless of where these funds will come from.
Who is in charge?
Section 28 of RA 8042 provides that under the “One-Country Team Approach,” all officers, representatives and personnel of the Philippine 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.
“If OWWA is supposedly the one in charge, where does the ‘One-Country Team Approach’ come in?,” the CMA asked.
To their knowledge, Sana said those who are currently involved in handling the situation in Lebanon are the following:
- Ambassador Bichara and embassy staff
- Honorary Consul in Syria
- Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO) in Beirut led by Labor Attache Glenda Manalo
- Middle East Preparedness Team (MEPT) led by Ambassador Roy Cimatu
They are assisted by other staff and personnel of POLOs in the Middle East like Riyadh Labor Attache Resty dela Fuente (a former OWWA director) and Welfare Officer Mario Antonio, designated as Lebanon evacuation team leader.
Those who are involved from the head office in Manila are:
- DFA Office of Undersecretary for Migrant Workers Affairs headed by Undersecretary Esteban Conejos Jr.
- OWWA under Administrator Roque
“From among them, who is in charge? How are they coordinated? How do they make the decisions?” asked Sana.
Government policy on evacuation
CMA also said it would like to be clarified as to what exactly is the government policy with 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.”
Sana also said the current situation only highlights the need to have an updated registry of OFWs containing basic information on their whereabouts.
Government policy on labor migration
Lastly, CMA is asking for categorical answers from the government whether it wants to promote labor migration or not.
“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.
Sana said reports in the media have quoted Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita as saying that job opportunities are only waiting for OFWs here.
“For a start, CMA would like to know how many of those who came home from Saudi have been assisted with new jobs locally,” she said.
6 Responses to OFWs’ questions on gov’t evacuation policy, repatriation fund beg for answers
tongue in, anew
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 am
Sadly, our OFW’s will be kept in the dark as long as the executive pretends to be working when in fact it is simply finding excuses not to be grilled by the Senate. The paranoia that its skeletons in the closet will be exposed again speaks of the manner it has treated similar legislative inquiries.
It’s unsettling to note that a huge slice of the social pie, which may be directly affected by the expatriation crisis now and in a similar future event, is not demanding for more gov’t action. Aside from a few militant workers’ groups, about half of the total population, directly or indirectly, who rely on the OFWs’ for their subsistence don’t seem to care. A stark contrast to the not so distant past that when a lone Angelito Dela Cruz was threatened with harm, Gloria succumbed to the widespread clamor, at the cost of discarding her illusory claim as the third character in the Bush-Blair-yournamehere triumvirate. Today, we’re talking in tens of thousands.
Has the Filipino really lost his sense of proactive nationalism in favor of naive individualism? Or has he simply realized that pinning his hopes on this reactive gov’t is futile? Even the rest of the country has opted to be mere spectators while manifestly sympathizing for the OFWs’ sorry plight.
Will the Filipino patience be sustained? Are we capable of consistency?
Do I now sound like the benign-o?
Ambuot Saimo
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Tongue,
Given the passive Pinoy mentality, Binign-oism which I may define as “the practice of self destruction by lambasting or attacking your own race in general and own genes in particular from far away place by the use of WWW both as weapon and shield to foment hatred” is I think becoming relevant in these days for purposes of daring or calling into action or proactivity.
Admit it or not but many of us has that “wala akong paki-alam” mentality if a thing or event does not concern or affect us personally. We are losing the bayanihan spirit and instead, we are becoming more self-centered.
But in this case, although civic action will help, but it is the patriarchal duty and legal responsibility of the government to repatriate these poor workers because there is a fund intended for this type of contingency. No need for further persuasions from the people.
If the fund is gone for whatever reasons and there is evidence of any wrongdoing, bring an action immediately against those who are responsible. Not Senate investigation first and “maybe” criminal action later as what is happening now.
naykika
August 4th, 2006 at 2:51 am
From the outset and ever since, I propose and suggested to all that might have some authority to effect the proposal and suggestion to conduct once and for all a “no- holds-barred” judicial inquiry for any high profile wrong doing in government or any of its agencies and enforce all its finding and recommendations. The type that has the power to subpoena even the highest official of the land to appear and testify under oath and anyone who refuse is subject to censor and penalties. Do it once and you don’t have to do it more often. The reason why we always resort to these type of hearing and investigation rather than the ones conducted by the senate or politician of any level, because it much more effective as the results had proven in the past. And it is always done on scheduled timetables. The result not only discovered the depth and personalities involved and thereby avoid the speculations from the press and the public of who are or were the ‘real’ scumbag and scalawag but also enable the lawmakers to propose and introduce new bills to correct the defects to plug the loopholes and make it harder for the crooks to do their trades with ease and impunity…again and again.
aus_phil
August 4th, 2006 at 5:50 am
Without reading the full text of this article, the suppression of the truth by not attending Senate hearing is becoming to be a nuisance that will eventually lead to full blown doubt about the activities of the current government! Repeated and deliberate policy of preventing officials from telling what is really happening in their areas of responsibilities will definitely backfire against the government esp. those moderate political spectrum. Ignoring the plight of our OFW esp. in warn torn places caught in unexpected turmoil is definitely a NO NO! I have high respect for our Foreign Services (and other agencies of government that deal with OFW) before but now doubted their sincerity nor capability as working units. In fact, some embassy staff are even squeezing dry our OFW in terms of high fees and charges, outside of the system, for simple documentary requirements. Without using so called “accredited agents” in Singapore, our DHs are charged around S$350, equivalent to almost a month’s wage, for simple charges as obtaining copies of contracts, etc. Embassy staff will not process these requirements without going through “accredited agents”. Our DHs are not stupid, uneducated people. They know simpe rules such as filling up the forms and follow-up. I rang the Philippine ambassador in Singapore to report the activities of her staff but even as a courtesy did not return my call. Perhaps, she is not interested to know hence I just have to report this in public. I’ve done this 2 times and this is the third. Perhaps also, no one read commentaries in the PCIJ and act on suspicions such as investigate the matter. It’s a pity if no one cares. Perhaps those close to the DFA Secretary should bark the issue.
tongue in, anew
August 4th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Precisely, Ambuot. Pinoys relate to situations only as it affects them. But look, our 8 million OFWs and 32 million dependents (ave. family size of 5) are all stakeholders in this case and there is no significant clamor in the same magnitude as the Angelito Dela Cruz case.
There may be a difference in the perception of the threat against Dela Cruz’ life which was apparently more certain in coming than that against OFWs in Lebanon, that their relatives are complacent or simply hopeful that the attacks won’t spillover. A bridge connecting Syria and Lebanon was demolished by Iraeli jet attacks the other day, and with more such targets blasted, the Pinoys in Lebanon, all 30 plus thousand of them, will be trapped in the war that has now moved the theater of conflict northeastward – where our Gov’t provides halfway-house service to fleeing OFWs.
Or the fact that media has struck the right chords during Dela Cruz’ hostage crisis that it sold a lot of newspapers, raised and sustained the mood and the succeeding events sold more papers, may have contributed to the rare display of unity of Pinoys during that time.
In the case of Flor Contemplacion, nobody knew about her predicament until it was a day or two prior to her execution that media took notice yet it produced much fireworks although much of it after her death, it even triggered the creation of the Gancayco Commission – which is pretty much what Naykika is suggesting.
Would it take images of Pinoys in body bags before the rest of the country gets involved? The DFA excuse that the official police reports were late, took them several days to report the death of 2 Pinays, I think was deliberately done to prevent triggering furor at home.
I support any inquiry now, not later, that will expose the planless Evacuation Plan, the unpreparedness of our Special Envoy for Middle East Preparedness Roy Cimatu, and the fundless OWWA Emergency Repatriation Fund.
INSIDE PCIJ » Palace issues guidelines for officials appearing in Congress
August 4th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
[…] A DAY after top officials were invited to a Senate inquiry on issues involving the repatriation of Filipino workers trapped in Lebanon, the Palace issued new guidelines specifying when an official may appear before Congress and the questions they may refuse to answer. […]