Policies that harm, not help, migrant labor

Tomas D. Achacoso was administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration from 1987 to 1990 under then-President Corazon C. Aquino, when Filipino migrant workers were still called overseas contract workers (OCWs).

The term “Overseas Filipino Workers” (OFWs) was adopted by Mrs. Aquino’s successor, Fidel V. Ramos—not that that phraseology helped much to ease the plight of our compatriots compelled to work abroad under difficult circumstances.

Achacoso—who prefers to use the term OCW—is an internationally recognized expert on migration and labor administration, and is regularly invited to deliver lectures on his areas of expertise by the European Union, International Organization on Migration and the World Bank. He has authored many publications, including “Manual for Labor Administrators,” “The Role of Government in Migration Process Management,” among others.

Reacting to my Wednesday column, titled “Rash decision-making on OFW ban,” Achacoso sent the following email:

“When it comes to helping OCWs, good intentions are not enough. Good intentions combined with bad theory have led to policies that harm instead of help (i.e. Republic Acts 8042 and 10022). The POEA has been doing a yeoman’s job given its constraints and limitations. It is looked upon as a model by other labor-sending countries which regularly send delegations to Manila on ‘study tours’ to learn from POEA’s expertise in managing the labor migration (LM) process. But despite this, why do labor migrants continue to be exploited and abused? With much of the problems plaguing LM universally recognized, the causes analyzed extensively, even some of the solutions known, why have attempts to manage this phenomenon been excruciatingly sluggish and tedious?

“The problem emanates, among others, from the RA 10026 as mentioned by former Ambassador Roy Señeres. Whoever drafted this amendment failed to understand the principles governing LM (in the same manner that RA 8042 had to be amended because it sought to abolish the regulatory power of the POEA) thereby making this [law] ‘unimplementable’ given the situation on the ground. LM epitomizes the perilous gap between proposals and practices—of its promise and performance. In spite of countless seminars, lavishly funded regional and international conferences and ministerial summits (72 since 1990 and counting), the problems not only remain unresolved but continue to worsen. WHY?

“Existing bilateral and multilateral norms and standards on LM are more symbolic and abstract rather than realistic and graphic since they have not resulted into a harmonized or comprehensive framework for the protection and promotion of the rights and welfare of labor migrants or the proper management of the LM phenomenon. The slogans and catchwords have produced elegant analyses of problems but have misled International Organizations (IOs) like the ILO, IOM and governments with prescriptions that are unattainable. The worth of IOs and government, after all, will not be judged on the elegance of their analyses but in the success or failure of their prescriptions. Take a look at what happened with the UN Migrant Workers Convention that was ratified in 2003 and which [then-President Gloria M. Arroyo] heartily endorsed in her speech during the 2nd Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) held in Manila in 2008—zilch! And recently, after 5 years of GFMD meetings, they decided to break up into a more modest regional format instead of their yearly international gatherings in the most exotic countries.

“Under hard realities, the POEA devised certain laws and mechanisms to protect and promote the welfare of OCWs despite the constrictions wrought by the paucity of international treaties and agreements. The Philippines crafted a series of tightly interconnected and intertwined laws and mechanisms in order to produce the desired goal of balancing the rights and welfare of labor migrants with liberal policies on licensing and regulation. These complementary laws give priority to justice for aggrieved labor migrants over the limitations imposed by international law on jurisdictional matters (i.e. the Joint and Solidary Liability provision which POEA has been utilizing since the beginning and which RA 10022 has re-emphasized.)

“Many countries have affirmed in principle and ratified international laws and conventions that grant certain rights to labor migrants only to set these aside when their sovereign right to regulate their borders and manage LM comes into play. Such laws and conventions are more often honored in words but rejected in practice. How many countries have violated international rules when it has been convenient, while asserting the importance of a rule-based international order?

“The prescription I offer is to look at a different emphasis and approach in an attempt to assemble the forces and structures necessary to manage LM towards a believable and feasible alternative to the status quo that represents the realities on the ground rather than merely tinkering at the margins.

“The imperative is, of course, for countries to focus their efforts into ordering their domestic structures, systems and procedures. But presuming that countries like the Philippines are doing so, a question that begs to be answered is why, even with solid foundations in place, structures, systems and procedures are still failing to effectively protect and promote the rights and welfare of labor migrants? Even the ILO Director-General concluded at one point that neither their constitutional procedures nor their regular technical cooperation activities ‘have had more than very limited success in reducing the daily and widespread exploitation of migrants.’

“It is my belief that the failure to move forward amidst the numerous interventions by IOs is due in large part to the inadequateness of existing philosophies and theories, institutional capacities and administrative arrangements, to address the challenges facing the LM phenomenon. IOs and the armchair labor migration experts focused more on symptoms such as remittances and HIV/AIDS rather than the root problems such as lack of institutional capacity or executive ability to construct and implement appropriate policies. Further, studies on LM seem to be motivated more by the review requirements of academic journals than by the needs of bureaucrats operating on the ground.

“Efforts to introduce change have faltered due to the international community’s inability to elaborate on the vision that they envisioned for the role of LM in development – to examine not only the path it is to travel but also of the practical measures and methods that must be adopted on this path through a LM process that is “rightly understood.” Without vision, strategy making can be much more difficult and budgeting can turn into a mindless exercise of merely talking last year’s numbers and changing them by a few percentages one way or the other.

“My central message is that the quality of government in general and LM institutions and officials in particular is critical to the achievement of the national development targets. “Bad governance is but the consequence of bad institutions…economists in general agree to the crucial role of institutions in affecting long-term economic performance.”(Sta.Ana, Filomeno III, ed. 2010) Government must look to itself rather than wait for some deus ex machina to show the way. They should never forget that structures condition people but people create and transform structures.” –Dan Mariano, Manila Times

dansoy26@yahoo.com