3-month moratorium eyed before OFW ban

MANILA, Philippines - The government is eyeing a three-month moratorium on the implementation of a ban on the deployment of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in 41 countries.

The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) said yesterday it is looking into the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to defer the implementation of the deployment ban for at least three months.

“We are open to the (DFA) recommendation and will be considering this during the ongoing discussion of the governing board on the matter,” POEA chief Carlos Cao said.

Cao said the DFA officially sent a letter last Nov. 3 requesting the POEA for a 90-day deferment of the deployment ban.

Acting on the request, the POEA governing board called an emergency meeting Friday to discuss the matter, but is yet to come out with a final decision until this time.

The DFA, as well as the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), expressed hope that the 90-day moratorium would provide time for receiving countries to negotiate for new bilateral agreements with the Philippines.

Valenzuela City Rep. Rex Gatchalian urged the DFA and the POEA to review the list of countries covered by the ban on the deployment of workers.

Compostela Valley Rep. Maria Carmen Zamora-Apsay also urged DFA and DOLE to get their act together over the ban.

Gatchalian said the DFA’s decision to withdraw the list of 41 “noncompliant” countries that do not extend enough protection to foreign workers should now give the two agencies to review it.

“I welcome the decision of the DFA to withdraw the list. The move showed that the agency was willing to rectify an obviously flawed recommendation judging from the negative reactions it received not only from the affected Filipino workers but also from the stakeholders and industry players,” he said.

Apsay, for her part, said the DFA should make a definite stand on the issue.

“It’s DFA who decertifies and now here is DFA saying don’t implement it yet. That is why we appear funny with our stand. That is why we really scold them (DFA and DOLE) when they are in our committee because they make government look dumb,” said Apsay, vice chair of the House committee on overseas workers’ affairs.

Apsay earlier hailed the deployment ban saying that such a ban “is consistent with our firm stand to curb the abuses and exploitation being suffered by our OFWs abroad.”

“As vice chairperson of the House committee on overseas workers affairs, we have been lobbying for this listing for the past six months or so,” she said.

“This is consistent with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 10022 which says that guarantee of OFW protection means that countries where OFWs may be deployed should have existing labor and social laws protecting the rights of workers, including migrant workers,” Apsay said.

Despite the lifting of the ban, Apsay urged the DFA to continue working for the forging of bilateral agreements with the 41 countries to ensure the protection of OFWs.

“In the first place it’s the role of the DFA to see to it that we have bilateral agreements with these countries. In fairness to POEA and DOLE they are just doing their job,” Apsay said.

Review the list

Under the amended Migrant Workers’ Act, the DOLE, POEA and other concerned government agencies are prohibited from sending Filipino workers to countries without bilateral agreements with the Philippines or laws protecting OFWs.

Earlier, the POEA upon the recommendation of the DFA, ordered a ban on the deployment of OFWs to at least 41 countries considered incapable of ensuring welfare and protection of Filipino workers.

As provided under the law, the ban would take effect 15 days after the publication of the list of so-called “noncompliant” countries in a national newspaper or starting Nov. 17

The DFA and the recruitment industry, however, sought a deferment in the implementation of the ban.

Government officials said the only way to halt the implementation of the ban is for the DFA to withdraw its certification on the 41 countries.

The DFA made the recommendation pursuant to its mandate under Republic Act 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.

Gatchalian, one of the authors of the law, said certain countries in the DFA list like Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Lesotho, Libya, Mali, Cambodia, and Mauritania, should have sufficient protection for workers.

In fact, these countries are all signatories to the United Nations Convention for the Protection of Migrant Workers, he said.

In the case of Cambodia, it is a signatory to the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, he said.

Gatchalian added that these countries should be “compliant,” unless they failed to honor their commitments under the international agreements they signed.

Earlier, Gatchalian said the deployment ban would benefit overseas Filipino workers in the long run since they are assured of enough protection in their host countries.

He said the “noncompliant” countries would be forced to take sufficient protection measures to be able to accept Filipino workers.

Cao, on the other hand, said the ban could affect the deployment of only about 266 newly hired Filipino workers.

But Cao said the POEA governing board would come out with a final decision on the DFA’s request for a moratorium at the soonest possible time, or before the law could officially take effect.

The DFA, meanwhile, said they would use the deferment period to revisit the list on the 41 countries.

“We will use the deferment period to revisit the 41 countries with the view of moving forward towards compliance with RA 10022 to ensure the promotion and protection of the rights and welfare of our workers overseas,” DFA spokesman Raul Hernandez said.

“We will submit a new certification after 90 days taking into account results of DFA’s dialogue with countries concerned and new developments in those countries with respect to protection of migrant workers,” he added.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said the Philippine government gives the highest importance to the safety and welfare of overseas Filipinos and the DFA continues to reinforce partnership with Congress and other stakeholders on the crucial issue of temporary deployment ban on OFWs in 41 countries.

Del Rosario, however, said the DFA believes that there are compelling reasons to defer further action on the list.

He said the list does not seek to pass any value judgment on any country and it serves as a crucial benchmark for all government agencies concerned to work for the betterment of the safety, welfare and working conditions of Filipinos.

Del Rosario stressed the need for the DFA to have ample opportunity to dialogue with these countries.

Such a dialogue, Del Rosario said, would be to the benefit of Filipino workers already there and those planning to seek gainful employment in those countries.

The Blas F. Ople Policy Center also welcomed the decision of the DFA to withdraw its certifications for the 41 countries on the deployment ban.

Susan Ople, president of the Center, said the DFA’s decision is timely because they have been receiving e-mails and Facebook messages from concerned workers who have already made travel and vacation plans for December.

Ople cited an e-mail sent by a casino worker based in Cambodia who already bought a ticket for him and his wife so they could spend Christmas in the Philippines. Cambodia was among the 41 countries included in the POEA’s deployment ban.

“This paves the way for a stress-free Christmas for our overseas workers who live and work in any of these 41 countries,” Ople said.

The Ople Center, a non-profit organization engaged in labor and migration issues, called on the DFA, POEA, legislators and different stakeholders to use the deferment period to sit down and thresh out possible solutions to the rampant abuse and maltreatment of Filipino workers, particularly household service workers abroad.

The Center also called for a review of earlier lists that contained countries with OFW-friendly policies.

Ople said that with the DFA’s move, the POEA could now issue a new circular nullifying the ban.

“This gives us a temporary reprieve but does not really solve the problem regarding how this law should be implemented. We urge the DFA and the POEA to use this period to hold more consultations with various stakeholders as well as with legislators,” she said.