User:Kythe Bautista/sandbox

History of Migration Policies

The history of Philippine Labor Migration policies can be traced as far back as 1521, when the Filipino natives started to man ships in the Manila – Acapulco Galleon trade. Filipinos started working in the dockyards and aboard ships travelling as far as Mexico, under the mandate of Spanish colonizers. In order to escape maltreatment by the Spaniards, many of those Filipino workers resorted to “jumping ship”, settling in state ports like Acapulco, Mexico and Louisiana, USA. They were the first generation of Filipino labor migrants. Since then, three “waves” of labor migration occurred (in the 1900-1940’s, the 1940s-1970’s, and the 1970s-1990’s),[5] each wave taking the Philippines closer to becoming one of the world’s largest labor exporting countries, as it is today.

The majority or the bulk of the temporary migration/ contractual/ labor migration started in the mid-1970s with the triggering of the formal adoption of the Overseas Employment Program with the Philippine Labor Code in 1974. It was also in the mid-1970s that the government started to mobilize and promote labor migration in the middle east as it has opened an opportunity for the Ferdinand Marcos, the then President of the Philippines, to export young unemployed men from the stagnating economy and be able to regulate and encourage labor outflows. The third wave of migration that took place in the 1970s was due to the economic downturn caused by an increase in crude oil prices. At this time, job loss in the country was tremendous. On the other side of the globe, however, oil-exporting countries were making large profits and this created a demand for more laborers to support their new projects. Marcos saw this as a chance to utilize the Philippines’ surplus labor and he created a foreign policy called “Development Diplomacy,” which focused on exporting such surplus labor. In 1980, the number of overseas workers set for deployment by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) had increased by 75% from that of the previous year.[5]

Factors affecting the Labor Flow in the Philippines

Labor Flows in the Philippines has been determined mainly by three factors: Rapid Population Growth, Uneven Development and Labor Oversupply and Unemployment. Rapid Population Growth has been a large contributing factor in labor migration. Rapid population growth, which was one of the highest in the world during the 70s-90s, has caused urban growth problems such as overcrowding , traffic congestion, the emergence of squatter areas and slums and ultimately unemployment. This has led migrant workers from the countryside explore outside of the country. Uneven population distribution of in the urbanized areas of the country and its other regions has caused socioeconomic imbalance. This socioeconomic imbalance or disparities has been seen to have caused the augmentation of the macroeconomic policies rendering it favourable for the urbanized areas, giving much attention to the industrial sector than the agricultural sector on the other regions of the country. Trade policies have also been seen to be highly biased on the rural development favouring industrial centers like the Metro Manila. Poor labor absorptive capacity of the country’s economy has been a contributing factor for the magnitude of labor migration outside the country. This draws back to the rapid growth of the population outpacing the growth of the country thus causing further unemployment.

Current Government Policies

Around four centuries after the first Filipino laborers migrated, a law on Philippine labor migration was finally enacted in 1995. The creation of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8042) was triggered by the growing pressures on the Philippines imposed by the murder case of Flor Contemplacion.[5] This case almost severed bilateral ties between the Philippines and Singapore (Contemplacion’s host country), negatively affecting the former’s economy with a $61.3B decrease in investments by the latter.[5] Graver than the economic distress caused by the Contemplacion case, was the reality it symbolized for the Filipinos. It was the final blow in a long struggle against the abuse suffered by Filipino migrant workers in their host countries. Besides that, other problems also existed, such as the abundance of so-called "tourist workers"—workers who migrated without going through the due process of labor migration and the proper briefing provided by regulatory government agencies.[6] Faced with such problems, RA 8042 was created with its goal: "to institute the policies of overseas employment and establish a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers and their families and overseas Filipinos in distress."[6]

RA 8024 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos act of 1995 seeks to deliver and provide full protection and promote full and equal employment opportunities for migrant workers. According to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, the act is intended for the assurance of the dignity and fundamental human rights and freedom of the Filipino citizens with an imperative to have an access to court and quasi-judicial bodies for the distressed overseas Filipinos. RA 8042 provided mechanisms to protect Filipino labor migrants from issues such as illegal recruitment and abuse by their employers. Some of the services that the government was to provide as stipulated in the law (Articles II-V) were the following:[6]

· To prevent illegal recruitment: issuance of travel advisories & information dissemination on labor and employment conditions and migration to be published thrice a quarter in a general circulation newspaper; creation of the Migrant Workers Loan Guarantee Fund of P100M for pre-departure and family loans of migrant workers

· To aid migrant workers in distress in their host countries: creation of Emergency Repatriation Fund of at least P100M for repatriation of migrant workers in times of war, epidemic, disasters (natural or manmade), etc.

· To enforce migrant workers’ rights in their host countries: establishment of Migrant Workers and Other Overseas Filipinos Resource Center which will provide, among many others, counsel and legal services, welfare assistance (medical services), post-arrival orientation, settlement and community networking services, human resource development (skills training), monitoring of daily situations of migrant workers, etc.; Rights and Enforcement Mechanisms Under International Human Rights Systems by the DFA (which will see to it that Filipino migrant workers who are victims of abuse and violation will receive the treatment they deserve under international human rights systems)

· For returning Filipino migrant workers: establishment of re-placement and monitoring center which will aid their reintegration into the Philippine society by developing livelihood programs and promoting their local employment, among other services

· Legal Services: creation of Legal Assistance Fund of P100M that will be used exclusively to provide legal services to Filipino migrant workers and overseas Filipinos in distress

In 2001, the Arroyo administration took a new stand regarding migrant workers. While RA 8042 stipulates that "the State does not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national development… [rather], the existence of the overseas employment program rests solely on the assurance that the dignity and fundamental rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizen shall not, at any time be compromised or violated,"[6] President Arroyo declared overseas employment as a "legitimate option for the country’s work force. As such, government shall fully respect labor mobility, including the preference for overseas employment." Such statement signaled the shift of the government’s role from merely managing migrant workers in their ventures abroad to actively promoting "international labor migration as a growth strategy, especially of the higher skilled, knowledge-based workers." [7]

In 2001–04, the following employment-promoting strategies were put action: enhancing the skills and competencies of the Philippine labor market by giving them easier access to training programs, facilitating employment by providing updated information on job opportunities to ensure the matching of workers’ skills and jobs, etc.[7]

In 2010, RA 10022 or an Act Amending RA 8042 was enacted. The amendments to the law sought to further improve the protection mechanisms provided for Filipino migrant workers.[7] RA 10022 is an act that amends RA 8024 that further improves the standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families and the overseas Filipinos in distress. This amendment establishes a continuous monitoring of international conventions, ratify those that guarantee protection of the migrant workers and enter bilateral agreement with the countries hosting overseas Filipino workers, free and accessible skills development and enhancement program for the unskilled workers. The state will also recognize non-government organizations, trade union, workers association, stakeholders and their similar entities duly recognized as legitimate in the protection of the Filipino overseas workers.

From 1565 to 2010, the face of Philippine Labor Migration had continued to evolve. Today, this stronger, systematized policy that the country adopts is one that neighboring countries like for example Indonesia try to emulate. [8]

Regulatory Impact Analysis on the Philippine Labor Migration Policies

According to Aniceto C Orbeta Jr. and Michael R.M. Abrigo, on their research Managing International Labor Migration: The Philippine Experience, however the Philippines is seen as the global model in managing international labor migration, the Philippine Migration Management Infrastructure has inefficiencies that needed to be restructured or highlighted. This includes the inefficiency of the migration policies to resolve illegal recruitment cases, professionalization of the Household Service Worker Sector or the HSW has been unknown to migrant workers, minimum wage provision has been violated by the stipulation of a lower minimum wage, and issues regarding the no-placement fee provision. Cost of deployment for workers has been greatly affected by the inclusion of Language and Culture and Stress Management trainings.