Please read and digest.
CMA Director Ellene Sana sent us a message as shown below. CMA also presented their case. But first please read this article from Veronica Uy of Inquirer.
By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net First Posted 13:38:00 10/13/2009
MANILA, Philippines — The Center for Migrant Advocacy, which looks after the welfare of and policy issues concerning overseas Filipino workers, on Tuesday opposed the proposed law requiring compulsory insurance coverage for OFWs.
Members of the bicameral conference committee to amend Republic Act 8042 or the Migrant Workers Rights could not agree on this either.
CMA executive director Ellene Sana said that while the intention to cover all OFWs is good, it is bound to follow the fate of the $25 membership fee for Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA).
The fee is supposed to be paid by the employer, but is usually paid by the OFWs themselves.
Sana said the government—not private insurance companies, recruiters, or OFWs—should provide OFW protection.
She said the present voluntary insurance coverage should stay. The proposal "opens up another multi-million dollar insurance business at $75 per OFW. Madaming kikita ditto (Many will earn from this)," she said.
The proposed bill being discussed in the bicameral conference committee provides that in addition to performance bond by recruiter, each worker shall be covered by compulsory insurance policy at no cost to worker; $15,000 survivor's benefit for accidental death; $10,000 for natural death; $7,500 for permanent total disability; repatriation cost in case of job termination or death; $100 a month in subsistence allowance benefit for six months for migrant worker involved in a case or litigation for protection of his or her rights in receiving country.
The bill also provides that claims resulting from employer's liability to worker shall have an insurance coverage amounting to three months for every year of service.
In case of workers recruited through government-to- government mechanisms, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration shall provide a guarantee fund for monetary claims out of breach of contract.
Rehires and direct hires may get insurance coverage from employers or pay these themselves.
http://globalnation .inquirer. net/news/ breakingnews/ view/20091013- 229848/OFW- welfare-group- vs-compulsory- insurance
BICAM defers proposal for compulsory insurance
From: ellene sana
To: pinoy-abroad forum
________________________________________
dear all:
the bicam on ra 8042 was convened tonight at 11pm by sen. jinggoy. present from the house were cong. edcel lagman (chair of the hosue conferees), cong rex gatchalian, cong luz ilagan cong arthur pinggoy and cong jonathan dela cruz.
i requested the bicam secretariat if i may be allowed to be in the premises and they agreed. i was "adopted" by the dole team composed of dole, owwa, poea and nlrc.
in an unprecedented move, the bicam invited us to say our piece -- me for the migrant grp, da hans cacdac (who is not feeling very well, me sakit simula kahapon) for dole-poea and the rep from nlrc.
first was da hans then followed by a barrage of questions from the panel.
i spoke next. ang message ko -- hindi necessary na ilegislate ang proposal for insurance kasi me existing insurance coverage naman ang ofws -- owwa, philhealth, joint and solidary liability, me leagl assistance fund, assistance to nationals fund, emergency repatriation fund pa. me provisions din sa work contract mismo at sa maraming destination countries e mandated din by law --labor law, social insurance and cooperative laws -- na i enrol ng employers ang workers sa insurance and i cited the case of saudi and uae (emirate of abu dhabi where health insurance is compulsory at no cost to the worker).... maraming problema sa owwa, kaya nga yung urgent need for congress to legislate an owwa charter, problema sa poea ...pero hindi solusyon ang insurance proposal sa pag address ng inefficiencies and poor implementation of the policies and poor performance of the state agencies....dapat iimprove ang implementation, bigyan ng resources, etc.... at hindi ipasa sa private sector kasi ang duty bound to protect e estado naman. me accountability sa mamamayan. hindi naman pareho sa insurance.... hindi rin puede ang argument ng parity with seabased kasi hindi naman kayang ma implement takaga for all dahil hindi naman lahat e me agency ang land based... and i referred to the stats on rehires and new hires....
then a few questions also. like sa tingin ko ba daw, hindi ba mabuti sa ofw yung insurance? asked sen, jinggoy. i said makakabuti siguro pero hindi necessary na ilegislate.... nagulo ata si sen. fortunately, cong lagman was quick to articulate it better -- sapat daw ang sagot ko --hindi makakabuti sa ofw at baka ipapasa lamang sa kanila...
another round of questions and clarifications, mostly addressed to poea --
then sen. jinggyo asked me -- so kailangan pa ba ng legislation? i told him, not for the proposal on the insurance. kung hindi ito, what more needs to be amended in ra8042 -- i answered yung section 4, section 10, yung sgism establishment....
si cong. jonathan dela cruz, ang point nya --was something like --hindi nga nagdedeliver yung poea et al kaya itong proposal e basically challenging the status quo or something like that....
then napagod na ata magtanong sila. and cong edcel made a final comment -- sabi niya --ito ang ganda pakinggan! --- he said -- i do not understand it -- the workers who are the intended beneficiaries of the proposal do not like it; the government is opposed to the proposal too. and we say as legislators that we are doing this for the ofws.... sino pa ang nag susuporta dito sa proposal? sabi nya --the recruiters.... then we have to think about this seriously..... para sa kanya, baka he would be open to a limited insurance coverage hindi na yung comprehensive insurance scheme as proposed.... then we were excused na by the chair.,..
pag uwi ko, at 1:10am, i got a call from owwa admin dimzon -- that the bicam has decided to defer decision on the proposal. na kailangan pa talagang seryosong pag aralan ito...... yehey!
from our end, we furnished the conferees our statement with all the endorsing organizations na humahaba na po ang listahan! let's keep it up! hindi pa po tapos ang lobby work natin! nagpahabol pa ako ng online feedback ng ofws doon sa article ni veronica uy about it .... .
pero kailangan po i-sustain natin ang lobby. mainam mag ingay tayo. let's speak to the media about it and why we opposed it.... nakikinig ang mga legislators. kailangan lang malakas ang boses natin at saka rationale ang mga arguments....
sorry kung magulo itong updates ko. antok na ako.... mamaya muli.
special thanks and appreciation to senator jinggoy and cong edcel lagman. ok din naman yung intervention ni cong. luz ilagan at cong rex at cong pinggoy.... na ang intent e makapag deliver ng assured relief/ support to the ofws kasi nga hindi fully functional ang state institutions kaya nila naiisip yung proposal. but they do listen to what the sector has to say...so SPEAK UP! let yor voices be heard! para ma i-shelve na itong compulsory insurance.
ellene a. sana
Center for Migrant Advocacy Philippines
72-C Matahimik Street, Teachers’ Village
Quezon City, Philippines
Email: cmaphils@pldtdsl.net; URL: www.pinoy-abroad.net
Telefax: +632 4330684; Telephone: +632 920 5003; Cellphone: +63 928 795 2222
hi all.
we send you again the statement opposing the proposed compulsory insurance coverage for ofws. the bicameral conference is stalled at the moment because of this proposed provision from the house.
what is your take on the issue?
please email back today if you endorse the statement. thank you.
Migrants Rights Groups and Trade Unions Say NO to the Proposed Compulsory
Insurance Coverage for OFWs, YES to OFW Protection!
October 12, 2009
To the Honorable Members of the Bicameral Committee Conference to Amend RA 8042
Attention: Hon. Jinggoy Estrada, Chair, Senate Committee on Labor
Hon. Manuel “Way Kurat” Zamora, Chair, House Committee on Overseas
Workers Affairs
The proposal for a comprehensive insurance coverage for OFWs may be wellintentioned.
It seeks to provide financial relief to the OFWs at every conceivable distressed situation that may befall him/her while woring abroad – disablement,
repatriation, death, even subsistence allowance while pursuing his/her case against her/his foreign employer abroad and a guaranteed minimum equivalent of a 3-month-salary money claim should he/she file claims at the NLRC against the agency that recruited him/
her. Furthermore, the proposal says that it will be the agencies who will pay the required premium for the said insurance coverage. What is more interesting is that various agencies are already doing this for sometime now for the workers they recruit. The
proposal seeks to legislate the practice and make it mandatory for all OFWs.
Again, we say this may be well intentioned but at this point in time, we say NO to the proposal because of the following reasons:
1. Since the law must apply to all, definitely the proposal CANNOT be implemented to cover ALL OFWs at no cost to them because only 26.6% on the average of the total annual number of deployed OFWs are those with agencies. (see Tables 1 and 2 below). The bigger number of land-based OFWs are rehires (Table 1) who renew their contracts on their own sans the agencies. Added to this are those recruited through the government placement and the name hires It will be unconstitutional to impose on them the proposal for
mandatory insurance if they are the ones who will pay for it. Moreover, the seabased workers including the vessels are already being enrolled under a comprehensive insurance coverage. We also take note of the provision of RA8042 Section 36 which says that “all fees being charged by any government office on
migrant workers shall remain at their present levels...”
Table 1. OFW Deployment. 1999-2008.
Source: POEA annual statistics, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.
www.poea.gov.ph
Year Total Landbased New Hires, (%) Rehires, (%) Seabased
1999 837,020 640,331 237,714 (37.12) 402,627 (62.87) 196,689
2000 841,628 643,304 253,418 (39.39) 389,886 (60.61) 198,324
2001 866,590 661,639 271,085 (40.97) 390,554 (59.03) 204,951
2002 891,908 682,315 289,288 (42.40) 393,027 (57.60) 209,593
2003 867,969 651,938 279,565 (42.88) 372,373 (57.12) 216,031
2004 933,588 704,586 284,912 (40.44) 419,674 (59.56) 229,002
2005 988,615 740,632 289,981 (39.15) 450,651 (60.85) 247,983
2006 1,062,567 788,070 317,680 (40.31) 470,390 (59.67) 274,497
2007 1,077,632 811,070 313,260 (38.62) 497,810 (61.38) 266,553
2008 1,236,013 974,399 376,973 (38.69) 597,426 (61.31) 261,614
Table 2. New Hires, By Type of Hiring. 2004-2008.
Source: www.poea.gov.ph
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
GPB Hire 5469 9953 11346 8625 4102
Private Agency
265310
(28%)
259572
(26%)
279354
(26%)
272517
(25%)
347000
(28%)
Name Hire 14133 16560 21300 31210 25263
Note: GPB –Government Placement Board; Name Hire – direct hire, without agency
Our proposal then is to encourage the agencies to continue the practice of voluntary enrolment of the OFWs they recruit and to enjoin the rest of their colleagues in the private sector to do the same. It certainly benefits the workers as it protects the
agencies from their liabilities and other obligations to the OFWs.
2. Looking beyond the merits of the proposal itself and the figures on Tables 1 and 2 above, we can see the bigger picture of the confusing state of Filipino labor
migration, to wit:
a. The regulation policy is flawed. While the policy of government is to regulate recruitment and deployment through the government-placement branch (GPB) and the private recruitment agencies for the purpose of ensuring protection to OFWs, we take note of the fact that more than 60% of the total number OFWs deployed every year do not actually have agencies anymore (Table 1).
Is this good or bad? It is good if the employer is good and if we have effective and working bilateral labor arrangements with the destination governments, which we do not have. It is good if the job contracts are thoroughly verified, documented and monitored
by the POLOS. It is good if the work contract is one that is at par with minimum prescribed standards for decent work and accepted and recognised under the laws of the
Philippines and the destination States. It is good if destination States have clear policies to protect migrant workers, are committed to international human rights and labor standards. It is not good if the OFWs could not come home for good as yet and be reunited with their loved ones here because of the seemingly-perennial sorry state of the political-economy of the Philippines which prompted them to go overseas in the first place.
It also renders null and void Section 10's Joint and Solidary Liability provision of RA 8042. This goes true not only for the rehires but for those recruited and deployed through the GPB since the State is not covered by the JSL provision. To make the State, through
the POEA, accountable for the workers it recruits, under the Rules and Regulations Governing Land based workers, Section 3 Part IV mandates the POEA to create a Foreign Employer's Guarantee Trust Fund for the purpose of covering the monetary claims arising from breach of contractaul obligations. However, to date, to our knowledge, this is not implemented. POEA should be made accountable for the implementation or non-implementation of this provision.
b. In the case of OWWA, the rehires or balik manggagawa PAY the OWWA fee of US$25 themselves, again, in violation of LOI 537 which clearly states that the US$25 should NOT IN ANY WAY BE CHARGED from the OFWs. Apart from the issue of who pays the OWWA fee, the other fundamental issue on OWWA that was surfaced by the insurance proposal is the very relevance of OWWA as a welfare agency for OFWs.
.Except for the money claim liability of the agencies, the other provisions of the proposed insurance are all included in the programs and services of OWWA and the other government agencies including OUMWA and POEA and the overseas posts as provided for under RA 8042. OWWA has a P12B welfare fund. It is also the administrator of the Emergency repatriation fund; OUMWA has Assistance to Nationals Fund and Legal
Assistance Fund; money is also earmarked for anti-trafficking victims.
Now is a good time to reiterate the demand for a public performance and financial audit of the OWWA and its funds. We recall that the OWWA Welfare Fund doubled from some P3B to P6B following the transfer of the Medicare programme and the amount of P530 M from the P3.5B Medicare funds under OWWA custody to Philhealth in 2005.
Since then, and also due to the steady increase in the OFW deployment, the OWWA funds have rapidly increased. OWWA should have expanded its coverage and benefits to the OFWs at no cost to them. Unfortunately, it took the opposite direction and further
restricted OFW access to its funds and benefits under the OWWA Omnibus Policies which we also seriously questioned and rejected since September 2003. We reiterate now our call to Congress to enact ASAP an OWWA Charter that will provide clear policy
guidelines on the administration and management of the OWWA with clear provisions
for OFW participation in decision making.
c. Limited institutional capability of the State to guarantee protection for OFWs. At
the rate labor migration is going, any and all efforts of government through its various
agencies here and abroad to provide quality service to OFWs and their families will
always not be enough. We have only 88 embassies and consulates and 37 POLOS serving
4.13 million OFWs, 3.69 million Filipino immigrants and permanent residents and close
to a million undocumented or those in irregular status1 spread out in more than 193
countries and destinations across the globe. Apart from looking after the welfare of our
Filipinos overseas, our embassies and consulates perform other duties and functions as
representative offices overseas and for the longest time, have not had an increase in
personnel complement. Also, based on the Commission on Audit Study in 2008, the ratio
of personnel overseas is one Labor Attache to a minimum of 5,600 OFWs to a maximum
of 100,000. In the April 2009 examination of the Philippine government as a State party
to the UN Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families, the UN Committee on Migrant Workers recommended that government
“review its labour migration policy in order to give primary importance to human
rights of migrant workers, in line with the State party’s own professed goal as set
out in RA 8042”. It recommended that “follow-up procedures as well as clear
measurable and time-bound targets in order to facilitate tracking of the
implementaton” of the “multitudes of initiatives and programmes” for OFWs.2
Unless our leaders are able to promptly shift to and implement a more sustainable and
people-centered economic recovery path, with the global crisis now and the devastating
effect of the last typhoons and flashfloods, we anticipate that labor migration will
continue to be the way of life for many Filipinos, no matter what. The least that
government can do is provide them protection. For the last 3 decades of labor migration,
it has failed to do so. No to privatisation and outsourcing of the State duty to protect
the OFWs and their families!##
Initial list of SIGNATORIES:
Alliance of Progressive Labor
Batis Aware
Batis Center for Women
Center for Migrant Advocacy
Development Action for Women Network (DAWN)
Filipino Community Services and Information Network-Hongkong
(FILCOMSIN-HK)
Hsinchu Catholic Diocese Migrants & Immigrants Service Center (HMISC),
Hsinchu, Taiwan
1 Www.poea.gov.ph . Stock estimates of Filipinos Overseas, December 2007.
2 Www.ohchr.org
Kabalikat ng OFW, Inc.- Luther Calderon, Secretary General
KAMPI (Luther Calderon, President)
Kanlungan Center for Women Foundation
Marino
MMOA
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
Scalabrinian Lay Association Inc.
YMCA Philippines
.........
Contact Persons:
Ellene A. Sana, CMA, Telephone: 920 5003/ 09174481464
Aladin Diega, Kanlungan Center, Telephone: 9282384/ 09182257228
Josua Mata, Alliance of Progressive Labor, 09177942431
Victorina Baby Lloren, Batis Aware, Tel: 9207086/ 0919 2158163
FEEDBACKS FROM INQUIRER READERS
Bert DiazOct 13
ano pa ba ang puwede naming ibigay sa gobyernong ito na hindi pa namin naibibigay? puso at kaluluwa namin durog na durog na dahil malayo kami sa aming pamilya. buwan-buwan kung puwede pati pangkain naipadadala na namin. ano pa ba ang kaya naming isuka para sa inyo? bakit ba parang galit na galit kayo sa aming mga OFW at di kayo tumitigil nang kaiisip kung paano kami pipigain hanggang sa huling patak ng aming dugo?
Roni JasmeOct 13
kawawa tlga si Juan Dela Cruz ...mga buwitre ang nagpapasasa sa dugo at pawis na pinuhunan ng bawat Pilipino sa paghahanapbuhay sa ibang bansa..dito sa Dubai , kapit sa patalim mga babae d2..patol na kahit sa mga mababahong bumbay pra lang may pantustos sa pang araw2 na gastos at pangangailangan nila.Sana magkaroon ng pagbabago sa sinumang mananalo sa susunod na eleksyon ...sana maging matalino tayo sa pagboto.
Amos TaranaOct 13
panibagong pang-uuto na naman ito sa mga OFW. kunya-kunyariang pagmamalasakit kuno, pero ang totoo ginagawa lang tayong gatasan para mapunuan ang luho ng mga buwaya sa gobyerno.
kapag tayong mga OFW ang nangangailangan, nasaan ang ating gobyerno?
nasaan? wala, wala, wala!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment