Kanlungan on the Proposed OFW Department

 

Kanlungan on the  Proposed OFW  Department

 

We are sharing with you the initial thoughts of Kanlungan with regard to the proposed OFW department

1) Given an existing legal framework, will the creation of a new department necessitate the amendment of all the necessary provisions affected by the creation of the new department. What provisions of these laws will need to be amended, and how long will it take Congress to do so? Some of these laws are: a) The Labor Code of the Philippines, with provisions on overseas employment; b) The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act (RA 8042), and An Act Amending RA 8042 (RA 10022) c) The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-Based OFWs (2016); d) The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Overseas Recruitment and Employment of Sea-Based Workers (2016); e) The 2016 Overseas Workers Welfare Administration Act (RA10801); g) The Anti-Trafficking Law (RA 9208 as amended by RA 10364)

2) The linkage with development agencies, in particular with the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), is not articulated in the bill.

NEDA itself has pointed out that that Philippine Plan (PDP) 2017-2022 has a clear and particular focus on overseas Filipinos. The drafting of the PDP has included the creation of a planning committee on international migration and development, to ensure that the concerns of the OFs during the full cycle of migration are taken into account.

3) Will undercut the Country-Team approach, which confers to the ambassador, and therefore to the DFA, the leadership in the protection of Filipinos overseas, because the bill assigns to the proposed department the task of establishing and implementing the Philippines’ migration policy.

The proposed department undermines the tested and functional “one country team approach” already institutionalized in Philippine embassies and consulates abroad. As it would have overarching powers in matters concerning overseas Filipinos vis-à-vis other governments, it would tend to give the Philippine Government another “face” or “voice” overseas which could easily be a cause for ambiguity and confusion regarding overseas Filipinos in other countries. (CFO, n/d)

4) What will be the role of the proposed Department in relation to conducting/negotiating for bilateral and multilateral agreements and representing the Philippines in regional and international dialogue and conditions?

The absence/separation of this function (based on the current draft of the consolidated bills) from the DMD and away from the Department of Foreign Affairs is one of the reasons why some M & D advocates are against the DMD. (Migration and Development Initiative, 2017)

5) How will the new Department position the non-migrant-focused agencies that have been mandated to take on issues of migrants, such as TESDA, NLRC, PCW, LGUs, DFA Passport, DFA OCA, Comelec OFOV, DFA OVS, DSWD, DepEd, CHED, DOJ, and the BI.

The bill does not factor in the migrants concerns in the allocation of material and human resources to these agencies for the development of programs and services responsive to the migrants and their families and in terms of adequate orientation and training on the complexities of migration.

6) The way forward is not to increase bureaucracy and to impose a one-size-fits-all approach, but to reduce and simplify the bureaucracy.

Creating a new department is just adding another layer of bureaucracy and as proposed, is not addressing any real gaps in migration governance. There are adequate institutional mechanisms as provided for under the existing laws to address all migration-related concerns that just need proper implementation and streamlining without the necessity of creating a new department.

7) Centralization might not work considering the very different but complementary functions of the existing agencies serving migrants’ needs.

Creating a new department might in fact be inefficient and also wasteful, due to unnecessary centralization, considering that policies and programs that serve the interests of overseas Filipinos belong to technically diverse functional areas, services and agencies. Moving toward policy coordination and coherence among different agencies, rather than a structural overhaul will most likely be more efficient and effective.

8. The focus of the bill seems to be on land  based OFWs.
The Filipinos diaspora is larger and more diverse than just the overseas workers.
More than half of the overseas Filipino population are not OFWs, but are permanent migrants or legal permanent residents or immigrants in the countries where they live, or are spouses of foreign nationals residing abroad, or natural born Filipinos who have acquired another citizenship, as well as descendants of overseas Filipinos. These nuances are not recognized in the proposed bills.

9) The merging of several offices implies massive administrative and logistical requirements, and a lengthy process.

The powers and functions of the proposed Department are already being undertaken by the DOLE through POEA and OWWA, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) through OUMWA, Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) through the Social Welfare Attache Office (SWATO) and the Commission on Overseas Filipinos (CFO). These agencies regularly coordinate with each other to facilitate the delivery of more responsive services for OFWs. Further, offices like foreign affairs and labor exercise unique and distinct roles and authorities which cannot be combined from the standpoint of mixing regulations, development and authorities to negotiate with counterparts abroad.

10) The fiscal requirements of creating a new Department are prohibitive.

A ballpark estimate of P580 million is required for personnel services, using as basis the proposed organization and staffing structure in the Bill… Correspondingly, additional funds for the maintenance and other operating expenses and capital outlays are also mandatory. (DOLE, 2017)

11) The creation of a new Department is at odds with the Right-Sizing Bill or streamlining of the Executive Branch, which has been identified as among the legislative priorities of the President. (DSWD, 2017)

During the coordination meeting called by Sec Adelino Sitoy of the Presidential Legislative Liaison Office on Sept 9, 2016, Sec Benjamin Diokno stated that prior to discussions on legislative measures that seek to create new agencies and offices (with the exception of the proposed Department of Housing), the DBM will push first for a ‘right-sizing bill’ to reorganize the bureaucracy. He made the same statement during the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) hearing at the Senate on August 31, 2016. (CFO, n/d)