1. R.A. 10022 Implications and Impact “Let our advance worrying
Migrant Workers & Recruitment Industry Stakeholders
“Let our advance worrying
become advance thinking and planning.” - Winston Churchill
Loreto B. Soriano

2. If fully implemented - the Implications and Impacts
“There is an increasing awareness of the interrelatedness of things. We are becoming less prone to accept an immediate solution without questioning its larger implications.” - Arthur Erickson
If fully implemented - the Implications and Impacts
Only a few nations are likely to meet the required criteria under Section 3. Most of those that will be certified as acceptable are highly developed countries, but even Singapore doesn’t appear to qualify.
Diplomatic and market disarray may ensue due to:
lack of legal, diplomatic, and trade due diligence
lack of prior consultation with OFW host governments and the OFW employers.

3. If fully implemented…..
Imposing labor standards on host countries that don’t even exist in Philippines e.g. for household workers, will incite lasting negative reactions from both foreign governments and their private sector employers.
Banned countries will assert economic, social and political pressure on the government of the Philippines including retaliatory trade measures.
Remittances will suffer steep declines. This will impact on the Philippine economy, especially the service sector including real estate.
New and current overseas jobs for OFWs will be in peril.

4. If fully implemented…
Section 3 of the law does not contemplate skill-sector or selective deployment bans like low skilled and house hold workers only. It refers to countries complying with the criteria of the law.
Middle East, North African nations and some destinations in Asia that account for 70%+ of all Land Based deployments are unlikely to meet the criteria.
OFWs losing their jobs will swell the domestic un- employment to a record high.
Exponential rise in illegal recruiters, undocumented workers, and corruption at processing and departure stages.

5. Implications and Impacts…..
Difficulty of providing protection and promoting welfare to illegal, undocumented and trafficked OFWs.
Foreign employers will seek alternatives to sourcing Filipinos workers.
The law will cause the demise of the ethical and reputable recruitment agencies and the rise of illegal recruiters and mal-practicing recruitment agencies that are mostly owned by foreigners and foreign placement agencies in Land Based sector.
IMMIGRANTS NOW COVERED: Substantial loss of fiscal revenues e.g. Doc Stamp Tax, Travel Tax, airport terminal fee.

6. “ It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law. “ Thomas Hobbes
In 1995, the Flor Contemplacion tragedy and public outcry caused the passing of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of R.A. 8042
It was ill conceived, reactionary and a cut-and- paste legislation formulated in haste.
It was a law needing repeal, not amendments.

7. “The wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand, which perishes in the twisting.” Ralf Waldo Emerson
R.A is flawed, challenged and ruled unconstitutional for Sections 6 (Illegal recruitment), 7 (Penalties), 9 (Venue) and paragraph 2 of section 10 (Money Claims) (PASEI v’s Exec Secretary Manila RTC Branch 32, Civil Case No ). The case is currently pending appeal by the Government in the Supreme Court.
It survived due in part to the lack of:
Government and Regulatory Oversight
Only partial implementation
Weak stakeholder’s support to challenge and replace it with reformist and forward looking legislation

8. “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made
“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto von Bismarck
Public and stakeholders’ clamor in 2009 to provide more protection for OFWs brought forth House Bill 5649 and Senate Bill 3286
Lack of congressional research, anecdotal evidence, plus conflicting stakeholder positions and motives and clear unequivocal policies, led to the conditions for the enactment of the amendatory law.
Stakeholders and legislators’ indignation to the Dubai drivers saga, usury lending, GAMCA; mal-treatment, exploitation and fraudulent processing of OFWs including domestic workers bound to M.E., brought forth flurry of “new provisions” in the Bicameral Conference Committee that was tasked to harmonize the two bills.

9. “More law, less justice.” Marcus Tullius Cicero
Many “un-original” provisions were inserted without public hearing and open and transparent deliberations during any plenary sessions.
A mandatory Employers’ Practices Liability Insurance proposed by recruitment industry to cover their potential liability for “Money Claims” was granted and contained in both the House and Senate amendatory bills.
However many additional forms of insurance coverage were inserted that are unwanted by stakeholders and may compromise existing benefits.
Now the Insurance Commission ignores the law by stipulating contrary conditions to it in the IIR

10. “ What the insurance companies have done is to reverse the business so that the public at large insures the insurance companies.” Gerry Spence
Section 7 Money Claims states the worker is entitled to the unexpired portion of his salary or a maximum of 3 months salary for every year of the unexpired term whichever is the less.
IIR alters this and places a limit of US$1000 for 3 months or the unexpired term whichever is the less and leaving the agency liable for the balance of those OFWs earning in excess of $1000.
It is not clear under numerous principles of insurance, commerce, the constitution and existing laws, whether agencies can be automatically liable, without any recourse and even be forced to pay the premium for coverage not compliant with either the intent or the actual law.
Non-fee charging agencies, like others, who are dealing with higher paid OFWs are being made to shoulder the very liability they sort to insure.

11. “Insurance: An ingenious modern game of chance
in which the player is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating the man who keeps the table.”
Ambrose Bierce
Mandatory insurance under House and Senate Bills was originally to provide cover for the contingent liabilities of recruitment agencies with the agency as the “insured” and the OFWs the “beneficiary.”
However, Sec. 23 has made the OFW the insured and expanded this coverage to life assurance, personal accident, and a raft of travel insurance provisions.
The agency does not control the liability portion of the policy.
Foreign employers are refusing to shoulder the premium. In Asia it is a brokers driven market where OFWs including domestic workers pay the brokers’ and agency placement fees. Who will pay the premiums now??
The expanded coverage may be in partially or wholly in conflict to employer programs, OWWA etc.

12. “Insurance is like marriage
“Insurance is like marriage. You pay, pay, pay, and you never get anything back.” Al Bundy
The relevance of the new forms of insurance have raised questions as to the real motives behind the expanded insurance and the ability of “accredited” insurers to provide sustained cover.
No approved policy wordings and qualified insurers names have been supplied with the publication of the IRR by the Insurance Commission.
No assurance has been given as to “Excess Loss” capability of accredited insurers in the event for example “of major markets being banned by the Government under Section 3,” or there being a local or global crisis necessitating massive repatriation.
How much is the reasonable premium and what portion is used for Money Claims liability?
No commissions should be paid. The total premium must be applied against the various liabilities. Agencies having a no claims history should be granted lower premiums or a rebate.

13. WHICH COUNTRIES ARE COMPLIANT?
Will countries that do not have legislated minimum wages, regular working hours and a rest day be compliant?
Will countries that do not regulate its recruitment/broker industry be compliant? e.g. Singapore, etc.
Will countries that have no recruitment rules, or do not enforce them, but still allow the collection of exorbitant brokers fees from OFWs be allowed to be certified?
How will countries that impose obligations to OFWs to shoulder the cost of their own recruitment, deployment, e.g. POEA - South Korea’s EPS?

14. SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS TO OFWS
(NON-COMPLIANT - BANNED HOST COUNTRIES)
How will the government now deal with non compliant countries that they have accepted for 40 years and all the employers of current OFWs?
Can OFWS currently working in non-compliant countries renew their contract, come home for a vacation, and be allowed to return?
How will OFWs be dealt with who are processed by their agencies and POEA for deployment after November 11 and December 11?
Who will refund the expenses of the workers, the agencies and the employers?
Who will answer to certain claims for damages and loses the employers will incur from the cancellation of their recruitment contracts in the Philippines?

15. SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS TO OFWS
(COMPLIANT COUNTRIES)
What happen to OFWs in certified or not-banned countries who will complain of exploitation, maltreatment, illegal dismissals? Can they or their families go to court, petition DFA to review its certification and demand for banning all future deployments to that country?
What will happen to OFWs in countries that are certified, but the countries have conflicting labor laws, arbitration rules and dispute resolutions to that of the Philippines?
Does a certificate of compliance from DFA have validity? How long before a review is taken again?
AIR of UNCERTAINTY: What job security and business continuance can DFA and POEA offer to OFWs, host countries, foreign employers, and the recruitment industry?

16. IMPACT TO GOVERNMENT WORKERS:
Section 8: PROHIBITION of RA 8042 banning involvement by Government employees in the recruitment industry is not amended. However, RA increases the number of government offices and institutions that are tasked to implement the law.
The new tasks under RA10022 demand necessary resources and will impose substantial costs to the following department and offices, but do they have sufficient flexibility in their budget to adequately and properly implement their mandated tasks?
Government participants: Congress (P25M for Oversight Committee).. POEA, IC, DOH, DFA, DOLE, OWWA, TESDA, NLRC, PAG-IBIG, PHILHEALTH, LGU, NCC.

17. PREPARATION, IMPLEMENTATION
Has the government already informed the destination countries and their Manila embassies of RA10022? How about countries, jobsites and territories where we do not have a diplomatic post?
Is there an information campaign in place about the new law, especially the implications of Section 3 to all OFWs and their families around the world?
Has the recruitment industry and POEA informed its more than 18,000 registered foreign employers?

18. DEPLOYED NEW HIRES- LAND BASED
by Gender (2001 – 2009)
Year
Male
Female %
Female%
2009
156,454
175,298
47%
53%
2008
174,928
163,338
52%
48%
2007
160,046
146,337
2006
123,688
184,454
40%
60%
2005
79,079
205,206
28%
72%
2004
72,355
209,457
26%
74%
2003
66,344
166,322
29%
71%
2002
88,732
199,423
31%
69%
2001
72,186
186,018
Grand Total
993,812
1,635,853
38%
62%
AVERAGE
Many of the individual figures and totals highlight discrepancies of POEA's published annual statistics, annual reports and media pronouncements. Rarely do they exceed of 5%.
Source: POEA

19. ‘New Hire’ OFWs by Skills Category, 2001 - 2009
AVERAGE
Many of the individual figures and totals highlight discrepancies of POEA's published annual statistics, annual reports and media pronouncements. Rarely do they exceed of 5%.
Source: POEA

20. Deployed Nurses,
YEAR
ALL COUNTRIES
USA
KSA UK
OTHER COUNTRIES
2000
8,341 91
4,358
2,628
1,264
2001
13,822
304
5,275
5,388
2,855
2002
12,335
322
6,068
3,105
2,840
2003
9,270
197
5,996
1,544
1,533
2004
8,879
373
5,926
800
1,780
2005
7,768
229
4,886
546
2,107
2006
8,528
202
5,753
145
2,428
2007
9,004
6,633 38
2,104
2008
12,618
649
8,848 28
3,058
2009
13,465
242
9,965
165
3,093
GRAND TOTAL
104,030
2,838
63,708
14,387
23,062
AVE.
10,403
284
6,371
1,439
2,306
ALL COUNTRIES
SAUDI ARABIA UK
USA
OTHER COUNTRIES
(Singapore, UAE, Kuwait, Canada, Libya, Qatar,
Taiwan, Ireland, Trinidad and Tobago, Other destinations)
Many of the individual figures and totals highlight discrepancies of POEA's published annual statistics, annual reports and media pronouncements. Rarely do they exceed of 5%.
Source: POEA

21. Professional Deployments to
Total New Hires
These figures reflect the overall similar percentages published by NSO from 2009 annual survey of Overseas Filipinos.
This POEA category includes other occupations such as entertainers and the sudden drop in 2005 reflects the sensation of females to Japan.
Source: POEA

22. Temporary & Irregular Overseas Filipinos
In M.E., N. Africa, Asia Countries, 2008
World Total
Temporary
3,626,259
Irregular
653,609
4,279,868
Middle East, North Africa, Asia
Countries
Middle East
Bahrain
42,659
3,800
Iran
1,500
3050
Iraq
3,370
2800
Israel
31,000
7,000
Jordan
16,500
8,150
Kuwait
136,018
10,000
Lebanon
25,848
5,000
Oman
34,292
9,000
Qatar
224,027
5,600
Saudi Arabia
1,072,458
20,000
Syria
13,288
6,000
United Arab Emirates
541,666
32,000
Yemen
2,000
300
North Africa
Algeria
2,500
500
Egypt
2,314
2000
Lybia
16,268
570
Asia - East & South
581,330
256622
Total
2,747,038
372,392
Middle East, North Africa, Asia Total
3,119,430
Source: CFO

23. Temporary & Irregular Overseas Filipinos
In Middle East Countries, 2008
World Total
Temporary
3,626,259
Irregular
653,609
4,279,868
Middle East
Bahrain
42,659
3,800
Iran
1,500
3050
Iraq
3,370
2800
Israel
31,000
7,000
Jordan
16,500
8,150
Kuwait
136,018
10,000
Lebanon
25,848
5,000
Oman
34,292
9,000
Qatar
224,027
5,600
Saudi Arabia
1,072,458
20,000
Syria
13,288
6,000
United Arab Emirates
541,666
32,000
Yemen
2,000
300
Total
2,144,626
112,700
2,257,326 OFWs
Source: CFO

24. Number of New Hires & Rehires Deployment
Middle East Countries, 2009
COUNTRIES
TOTAL
Saudi Arabia
291,419
United Arab Emirates
196,815
Qatar
89,290
Kuwait
45,900
Bahrain
15,001
Oman
10,502
Libya
10,383
Israel
4,466
Jordan
1,621
Yemen
1,417
Lebanon
1,326
Egypt
483
Iran
219
Syria
200
Iraq
TOTAL MIDDLE EAST
669,042
Banned Countries
N.B. The figure for the UAE includes “reprocessed” job orders that use especially Dubai and the transit point to other destination including banned countries in the Middle East and for different occupations e.g. clerk has clearance for position in Dubai is really a domestic helper going to Lebanon.
Source: POEA

25. Top 20 Places For Remittances, 2009
COUNTRIES
Remittance
(in Billions)
USA
7,323,661
Canada
1,900,963
Saudi Arabia
1,470,571
United Kingdom
859,612
Japan
773,561
Singapore
649,943
UAE
644,822
Italy
521,297
Germany
433,488
Norway
352,957
Hong Kong
339,552
Greece
200,342
Qatar
184,574
Australia
181,437
Bahrain
166,222
Netherlands
146,503
Kuwait
104,634
Korea
97,035
Taiwan
91,779
Malaysia
86,030
TOTAL
16,528,983
Indicates the approx. value of US and Canadian remittances due to:
A.) US figure is distorted due to the high percentage of Middle East remittances being transferred through New York banks. The Philippine banking system only credits the country from which the transfer was received not the source country. This also applies to many other source country hosts. B.) The figure for Canada also is distorted as this is the hub for Western Union.
Source: BSP, POEA

26. Importance of Middle East Remittances
Source: BSP, World Bank, Author’s Est.

27. Former President Gloria M. Arroyo allowed RA10022 to lapse into law.
“Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.” Albert Einstein
Former President Gloria M. Arroyo allowed RA10022 to lapse into law.
This tends to confirm that she, like many of the stakeholders believe the law “will create the problems it seeks to eliminate or solve.”
Stakeholders and especially the Government are not prepared nor ready for the Implementation.
No stakeholder composite group is forecasting and planning to counter its implications and impacts!!

28. “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
Abraham Lincoln

29. Top 20 Sources of Remittances, 2005 - 2009
2006
2007
2008
2009
USA
6,424,848
6,526,429
7,564,887
7,825,607
7,323,661
Saudi Arabia
949,372
1,117,915
1,141,319
1,387,120
1,470,571
Canada
117,061
590,627
595,079
1,308,692
1,900,963
United Kingdom
300,725
561,670
684,007
776,354
859,612
Italy
430,071
574,662
635,944
678,539
521,297
Japan
356,659
453,398
401,612
575,181
773,561
UAE
257,429
427,246
529,963
621,232
644,822
Singapore
240,149
285,126
386,409
523,951
649,943
Hongkong
338,895
413,723
383,160
406,134
339,552
Germany
142,530
162,020
207,935
304,644
433,488
Norway
19,814
128,279
159,150
185,619
352,957
Taiwan
86,551
168,998
183,357
194,071
91,779
Qatar
42,012
128,530
132,853
122,912
184,574
Kuwait
91,765
123,931
165,226
125,093
104,634
Bahrain
41,609
67,044
142,428
159,496
166,222
Greece
52,738
93,866
99,374
116,736
200,342
Australia
49,919
68,572
92,205
129,453
181,437
Korea
99,710
100,670
95,434
81,642
97,035
Netherlands
67,666
66,260
73,059
78,110
146,503
Malaysia
38,013
40,717
59,302
80,377
86,030
Source: BSP

30. Stock Estimate of Overseas Filipinos
Middle East Countries, 2008
COUNTRIES
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
IRREGULAR
TOTAL
Bahrain 85
42,659
3,800
46,544
Egypt na
Iran
1,016
1,500
3,050
5,566
Iraq 45
3,370
2,800
6,215
Israel
1,001
31,000
7,000
39,001
Jordan
108
16,500
8,150
24,758
Kuwait
500
136,018
10,000
146,518
Lebanon
25,848
5,000
31,348
Libya
Oman
100
34,292
9,000
43,392
Qatar 15
224,027
5,600
229,642
Saudi Arabia
351
1,072,458
20,000
1,092,809
Syria
135
13,288
6,000
19,423
United Arab Emirates
713
541,666
32,000
574,379
Yemen 30
2,000
300
2,330
TOTAL MIDDLE EAST
4,599
2,144,626
112,700
2,261,925
Banned Countries
Source: CFO

31. Middle East - Overseas Filipinos' Remittances
Remittances in Thousand U.S. Dollars, 2009
COUNTRIES
LANDBASED
SEABASED
TOTAL
Bahrain
165,797
425
166,222
Egypt
312
868
1,180
Iran 21
Iraq
228
Israel
38,499 38
38,537
Jordan
6,895
Kuwait
101,779
2,855
104,634
Lebanon
12,091
Libya
473
Oman
34,440 9
34,449
Qatar
184,308
266
184,574
Saudi Arabia
1,469,194
1,377
1,470,571
Syria 23
United Arab Emirates
627,209
17,613
644,822
Yemen
311
TOTAL MIDDLE EAST
2,641,580
23,451
2,665,031
Banned Countries
Source: BSP

32. Service Workers - New Hires
Middle East Countries, 2009
COUNTRIES
FEMALE
MALE
TOTAL
Bahrain
499
2,183
2,682
Egypt 11
Iran
Iraq
Israel
168
1,059
1,227
Jordan 65
133
198
Kuwait
1,319
15,243
16,562
Lebanon 1
Libya
132 34
166
Oman
100
1,343
1,443
Qatar
1,983
8,604
10,587
Saudi Arabia
9,124
27,211
36,335
Syria 26
United Arab Emirates
3,679
21,043
24,722
Yemen
TOTAL MIDDLE EAST
17,069
76,892
93,961
Banned Countries
Source: POEA