COMMITTEE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Committee on Rights of Migrant Workers
23 April 2009



The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families this afternoon began its consideration of the initial report of the Philippines on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Introducing the report, Erlinda F. Basilio, Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Philippines had always championed the rights of migrant workers and their families in firm recognition of the significant role and contribution of all migrant workers in sending, transit and destination countries. The Philippines continued to play an advocacy role for human rights in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, and had initiated and actively engaged in the formulation of the ASEAN Declaration on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers, as well as in the inclusion of the creation of the ASEAN Human Rights Body in the mandate of the ASEAN Charter. The Philippines had also continued to advance the cause of migrant workers by hosting the Second Global Forum on Migration and Development, in October 2008, which had projected the "human face" of migration in a debate that often only addressed the rational economic implications of migration for development.

The Philippines had one of the most developed overseas employment programmes in the world, Ms. Basilio emphasized, one which had been duly recognized by the international community as a model in migration management among labour-sending countries in Asia, especially with regard to migrant workers' protection. Owing to the vulnerable status that required adequate safeguards and protection, the Philippines had enacted the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, even before the entry into force of the International Convention on Migrant Workers. While the Government did not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic development, it recognized the significant contribution of migrants to the economy. The Filipino diaspora was an existing migration reality. The Government's current active efforts to secure access to labour markets for Filipinos desiring to seek employment opportunities outside the country were means to manage that migration reality, especially in the face of the economic crisis which, to date, had brought about a loss of 6,406 jobs abroad and 109,529 at home.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, Committee Expert Prasad Kariyawasam, agreed that the Philippines was a model for sending countries in the migration area, and they might therefore expect a higher level of scrutiny from the Committee. Among questions, he asked about coordination of the many migration mechanisms in the country; what provisions or special mechanisms there were to protect the female migrants – mostly domestic workers and performing artists – who made up the majority of the overseas Filipino workers; and why not all persons holding Filipino passports could vote.

The co-Rapporteur for the report, Myriam Poussi asked about civil society contributions in drawing up the report and details of how the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration carried out its oversight function, as well as more information about the sale of Filipinas by mail order.

Other concerns raised by Experts included the prohibition against foreigners' engaging in trade unions; the grounds for expulsion of aliens, which included such activities as "profiteering"; the fact that an alien employment permit could be revoked if the alien was declared "undesirable"; and the difference, if any, between "expulsion" and "deportation", as mentioned in the report.

The delegation of the Philippines also included Vice Ministers from the Presidential Human Rights Committee, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Department of the Interior and Local Government; as well as representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Labour and Employment, the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration and the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Friday, 24 April, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 24 April, it will hear the answers of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the questions posed by Experts at this morning's meeting.

Report of the Philippines

The initial report of the Philippines (CMW/C/PHL/1) says the Philippines is among the largest migrant-sending countries in the world. As of December 2004, Overseas Filipinos live in 194 countries and territories all over the globe. Those include some 3.2 million permanent settlers, the majority in the United States; about 3.6 million temporary labour migrants, with Saudi Arabia hosting up to a million; and an estimated 1.3 million emigrants in an unauthorized situation. Over the years, the volume of Filipinos leaving the country for temporary contract work is greater than those who leave to reside permanently abroad. The number of documented overseas Filipino workers exceeded the 1 million mark in 2005, registering a total of 1.205 million, a 2.25% increase over the previous year’s figure. Females dominate the labour migration stream since the 1980s. Female new hires totalling 205,206 comprised 72 per cent of deployment in 2005, an increase that may be attributed to the sizeable increase in the deployment of household workers and female Overseas Performing Artists since 1992. Although largely a country of emigration, there are 36,150 foreign nationals working and residing in the Philippines.

Much of the country’s attention and policies, though, are focused on emigration. Overseas Filipino Workers remit around $12 billion annually through the banking channels, which is roughly equivalent to 13 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product of the country, and thus plays a significant share in keeping the current account deficit manageable and in stabilizing the economy. The Government facilitates migration, regulates the operations of the recruitment agencies, and looks out for rights of its migrant workers. In the early 1980s, to cope with the great demand for workers in the Middle East, the Government was forced to revive private sector participation in the recruitment and placement of overseas Filipino workers. In 1982, Executive Order No. 797 was passed to streamline operations in the overseas employment programme. Several programmes for overseas Filipino workers were united in a single structure – the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The Administration primarily controls, monitors and regulates the operation of private recruitment agencies and has as its mission “to ensure decent and productive employment for overseas Filipino workers”. The Administration has overall claims arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers. It also has the power to impose restrictions and regulations on recruitment and placement of workers, for example, temporarily suspending the deployment of female domestic workers abroad. While all processes and requirements up until the point of departure are handled by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, it is Overseas Workers Welfare Administration that assumes responsibility for the workers’ welfare while they are employed abroad. The Welfare Administration's primary task is to develop and implement responsive programmes and services, while ensuring fund viability, towards the protection of the interest and promotion of overseas Filipino workers.

Presentation of Report

ERLINDA F. BASILIO, Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introducing the report, said the Philippines had always championed the rights of migrant workers and their families in firm recognition of the significant role and contribution of all migrant workers in sending, transit and destination countries. The Philippines continued to play an advocacy role for human rights in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, and had initiated and actively engaged in the formulation of the ASEAN Declaration on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers, as well as in the inclusion of the creation of the ASEAN Human Rights Body in the mandate of the ASEAN Charter. Presently, the Philippines chaired the Committee against Trafficking in Persons of the ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime.

The Philippines continued to advance the cause of migrant workers by hosting the Second Global Forum on Migration and Development with the flagship theme: "Protecting and Empowering Migrants for Development", in October 2008, Ms. Basilio highlighted. It had projected the human face of migration in a debate that often only addressed the rational economic implications of migration for development. The Philippines had also taken the opportunity during that Forum to call on other countries to accede to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. As a follow-on to the Forum, the Philippines had hosted the International Conference on Gender, Migration and Development, which had highlighted the gender perspective and rights-based approach to policies, programmes and services on migration.

Earlier this month, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, Alberto Romulo, had taken part in the Ministerial Meeting of the Bali process to strengthen regional cooperation in the fight against human trafficking. And, just yesterday, at the Durban Review Conference currently being held here in Geneva, the Philippines delegation had worked constructively to include robust provisions in the outcome document on protection of the rights of migrants, as well as the importance of enhancing international cooperation to effectively combat human trafficking, with a special focus on a human rights-based approach and providing appropriate assistance to victims, Ms. Basilio said.

Turning to activities at the domestic level, Ms. Basilio observed that, to ensure a nationwide, cohesive and participatory approach to the effective implementation of human rights policies and programmes in the country, the Presidential Human Rights Committee was coordinating the formulation of a Second National Human Rights Action Plan. That national effort had been further strengthened by a Presidential directive issued on 10 December 2008 instructing all relevant executive departments and agencies to institute policies, programmes and projects to advance human rights.

The Philippines had one of the most developed overseas employment programmes in the world, Ms. Basilio emphasized, one which had been duly recognized by the international community as a model in migration management among labour-sending countries in Asia, especially with regard to migrant workers' protection. Owing to the vulnerable status that required adequate safeguards and protection, the Philippines had enacted the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, even before the entry into force of the International Convention on Migrant Workers.

While the Government did not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic development, it recognized the significant contribution of migrants to the economy, Ms. Basilio continued. The Filipino diaspora was an existing migration reality. The Government's current active efforts to secure access to labour markets for Filipinos desiring to seek employment opportunities outside the country were means to manage that migration reality, especially in the face of the economic crisis which, to date, had brought about a loss of 6,406 jobs abroad and 109,529 at home.

In order to address welfare concerns, the Philippine Government had adopted various approaches ranging from regulatory and preventive mechanisms to bilateral agreements with labour receiving countries, ratification of international labour conventions on migration and participation in regional and multilateral initiatives to protect Filipino nations from recruitment and employment malpractices. Noteworthy in that regard was the President's directive to expand the Executive Order of 24 February 2004 pertaining to the deployment of Social Welfare Attachés to selected diplomatic posts. Through the Social Welfare Attachés, the Philippines aimed to implement comprehensive and appropriate social welfare services for overseas Filipino workers and their families, among others.

The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration had also adopted a stricter regulation for administrative offences and penalties for malpractice by agencies and employers for recruitment violations, including charging of excessive placement fees. In 2008, a total of 318 illegal recruitment cases referred to the prosecution offices had led to the arrest of 98 suspected illegal recruiters, and the conduct of 54 sting operations which resulted in the closure of 10 establishments confirmed to have been engaged in illegal recruitment. Moreover, the Administration, through its legal assistance division, had received a total of 1,060 complaints of economically displaced workers referred for conciliation. As a result thereof, more than $600,000 in settlements had been reached through the conciliation unit for the period from 5 December 2008 to 30 March 2009. To strengthen the Government's drive against illegal recruitment, the President had issued an Executive Order in October 2008 for the creation of an inter-agency Task Force Against Illegal Recruitment under the office of the Vice President, Ms. Basilio said.

While the Philippines was proud of its achievements in the field of promoting and protecting the rights of migrant workers, Ms. Basilio underscored that the Government took the view that migration was a shared responsibility. Greater partnership between countries of origin, transit and destination, as well as the full integration of the migratory dimension in development policies and dialogue on all levels were crucial steps in enhancing the development potential of migration. The cultural and economic contributions made by migrants to receiving societies and their communities of origin should not only be recognized, but more importantly, maximized. In that regard, as part of its undertaking a shared responsibility, the Philippines had accepted invitations by Governments and international organizations to share its experiences and best practices in the management of migration and development, she concluded.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

PRASAD KARIYAWASAM, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, recognized the lead role the Philippines played with regard to migration policy and the role it had played as a host to the Second Forum on Migration and Development. The fact that, among sending countries, the Philippines stood out as a model in providing the best opportunities and protections for those leaving the country, had also been widely recognized. The Philippines had also been lucky in having a very active civil society and democratic institutions which had been a great help. However, as a model, the Philippines could expect to be examined by the Committee at a higher threshold.

Mr. Kariyawasam noted that the Philippines had enacted the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act in 1995. He wondered if that Act and the many other mechanisms on migration were in line with the Convention and if any analysis had ever been undertaken to determine that fact? Also, how was coordination effected between these bodies?

Mr. Kariyawasam also welcomed the many bilateral agreements the Philippines had entered into with other Governments, which could mitigate the fact that many receiving countries were not members of this Convention. However, did the Philippines make an effort to push the provisions and principles of the United Nations Convention in these bilateral agreements?

Turning to the subject of deployment bans levelled against the sending of workers to certain countries, Mr. Kariyawasam was not against that practice per se, but wondered what the process was for determining which countries would be under such deployment bans.

As 10 per cent of the population was working abroad it was logical that the Government had spent so much effort on catering to that population, through consular offices and others. He wondered, in that connection, if those working with overseas Filipino workers received any particular training. Moreover, in cases where diplomatic agents violated the provisions of domestic law or the Convention, what recourse did the Government have to sanction those agents?

The region of Sabah was a disputed territory, but many Filipino migrant workers were working there. While the Philippines did not have control over that disputed territory with Malaysia, how did it ensure protections for its workers there?

Regarding the gender dimension of migration, and noting the disproportionate amount of women who worked overseas, what were the provisions and special mechanisms to protect these two groups – female domestic workers and female performing artists – who made up the majority of the Filipina workers overseas, Mr. Kariyawasam asked?

Mr. Kariyawasam was concerned that not all persons holding Filipino passports were able to vote. Finally, although it was only a small population, there had been very little information with regard to migrants working in the Philippines and the delegation was asked for more details about programmes and policies to protect the rights of those persons.

MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, observed that the report was exhaustive, as it contained a lot of data and fundamental data on migration in the Philippines, as well as highlighting a number of provisions that governed migration in the Philippines as well as structures and organizations related to that area. Still, it was not clear to her that civil society had been involved in drawing up the report and she would appreciate clarification on that.

With regard to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Ms. Poussi asked for more information about how it carried out its oversight function regarding foreign recruitment firms.

Ms. Poussi had read in the report about the sale of Filipinas by mail order and asked for more information. What were the sanctions for such practices and what cases had been brought to trial?

Other Committee Experts then asked questions on a number of issues, including the legal status of the Convention in domestic law; the fact that foreigners were prohibited from engaging in trade unions and whether the Philippines had ratified the two core Conventions on labour unions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) which would nullify such laws; whether there had been complaints by migrant workers complaining of unjust imprisonment; concerns about the grounds for expulsion of aliens, which included such activities as "profiteering"; and what it meant in the report when it was said that an alien employment permit could be revoked if the alien was declared "undesirable" by the competent authorities.

Other questions included whether there were migration centres for migrants transiting through the country or in an irregular situation; what was the difference between expulsion and deportation, as mentioned in the report, and whether those procedures were in line with the Convention's provisions.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to the questions just put, the delegation noted that the subject of migrant workers would form an important part of the national human rights action plan that was being drawn up by the Government. Work had begun on the plan and facilitators of nationwide consultations had already been briefed on how to carry out the needed consultations.

One major area of enhancement of the Administrative Order has also been the designation of government lead agencies to ensure the implementation of international treaties, which in the case of this Convention was led by the Ministry of Labour.

With regard to the involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the area of migration, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provided specifically for the involvement of NGOs in those areas, as did other Administrative Orders. In terms of preparing the report, civil society organizations had been widely consulted and their input was reflected in the report. As for the non-participation of the Commission for Human Rights of the Philippines, that followed naturally from the independent position of the Commission, which was responsible for monitoring government activities to promote human rights. It would hardly be right to associate itself with a report that it would also be responsible for monitoring, the delegation pointed out.

On coordination of data and information, the delegation noted that the Migrants Advisory and Information Network had been initiated in 1995, coordinating the work of 11 Government agencies. What remained to be done was totally linking their information systems to make the protection of migrants more efficient and more meaningful. Several kiosks had been installed in shopping malls and public places were people could access very easily job-matching information, including access to information on prospective employers, and it was even possible to send job applications electronically. That was one example of how inter-agency coordination worked with regard to migrants.

The delegation said that, to protect overseas workers, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration had instituted a mandatory pre-departure orientation seminar, broken down by region: America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Among others, the seminars provided information on the culture and tradition of the countries to which they were going, as well as the common problems encountered and coping mechanisms. Most importantly, they discussed the code of behaviour for overseas workers and their rights and duties under the employment contract. From September 2007 to December 2008, over 42,000 had benefited from the trainings conducted by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration workers education division.

To respond to the needs of those who were going to work as domestic workers abroad, there were seminars with specific focuses on areas related to household work. There were language courses in Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, English and others. The curriculum also included a stress debriefing.

To combat trafficking, the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking had regional, national and municipal level agencies working in this area. The Social Welfare Department had been conducting an advocacy campaign aimed at generating national and local level support, conducted in identified areas. A campaign, "we are not for sale " had also been carried out, which targeted the involvement of immigration officials in such traffic. In the area of protection, the Social Welfare Department, in conjunction with NGOs, provided temporary shelters, and also conducted rescue operations. In terms of recovery and rehabilitation, psychosocial interventions, including counselling, skills development and financial assistance to start up income generating activities were provided, as were medical assistance and psychological or psychiatric help, as needed. The Social Welfare Department had also provided guidance to service providers in helping the victims of trafficking.

In addition, a national recovery and reintegration database had been set up to capture not just the number and age of those trafficked, but also their countries of origin, the type of trafficking and other indicators, so that it was now possible to track down the status of survivors. As previously mentioned, the Social Welfare Attachés were also being used to help assist victims abroad.

Further Questions by Experts

Ms. Poussi, the co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, worried about the negative impact on family stability and society of the large numbers of Philippine women that immigrated. She asked if there were a large number of married women who emigrated and what special difficulties they might face, including whether it was easy for their husbands to join them in the countries where they were working, and the situation of children that might be left behind.

Mr. Kariyawasam, the Rapporteur for the report, asked about the mandatory pre-departure seminars and what happened if they were not attended – were workers then not allowed to emigrate? He also asked how the Government worked to regularize the situation of migrants in irregular situations.

Other Experts asked for specific examples and details of good practices regarding protection of overseas Filipino workers, for example the legalization of migrant workers without papers; whether there was a migration observatory that drew together all the strands of migration policy and oversaw that policy; and whether the Philippines was suffering from the "brain drain" phenomenon, with its most skilled workers emigrating.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record