MANILA, 20 November 2003 — Manila-based migrant non-government organizations have warned that the conversion of the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) into a national government agency could lead to the transfer of over 6 billion pesos in the welfare agency’s funds to the national treasury.

If and when that happens, said Philippine Migrants Rights Watch (PMRW) President Carmelita Nuqui, the OFW contributions accumulated over the years could be converted into a “slush fund” for government.

John Batara of the Center for Overseas Workers (COW) said it could be turned into a “petty cash fund.” Others feared it could be turned into a “milking cow” for corrupt officials.

Under present rules, the contributions of OFWs, or Overseas Filipino Workers, are kept in a trust fund managed by the OWWA for its members.

But the OWWA Omnibus Policies passed on Sept. 19 through Board Resolution 038 by the agency’s board of trustees headed by Labor Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas is seen as a move to convert OWWA into a non-government agency, or NGA.

Advocates for migrant workers’ rights noted that the new policies also restrict membership in the OWWA to working OFWs, amending the rule extending membership to families of OFWs and to OFW returnees.

This means that benefits will only be given to OWWA members, whereas previously, families of OWWA members could avail of OWWA benefits.

Restraining Order

Nuqui, Batara and representatives of other Manila-based migrant-related groups are seeking a temporary restraining order from the courts to stop the implementation of the Omnibus Policies on grounds that most of these are inimical to the interests of OFWs.

The protesting groups include the Merchant Marine Overseas Association (MMOA), Mariners’ Association for Regional and International Networking Organization (MARINO), the Organization of Blacklisted Seamen, Atikha, Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party, Apostleship of the Sea (AOS), the Episcopal Commission on Migrants and Itinerant Peoples of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP-ECMI), the SCPM, Unlad Kabayan, Migrante International, Kanlungan Center Foundation Inc. (KCFI), Center for Migrant Advocacy-Philippines (CMA-Phils), Development Action for Women Network (DAWN), Alliance of Migrant Workers and Advocates to Amend RA 8042 (AMEND), COW, and the PMRW.

They also want a redefinition of the OWWA charter in light of the issuance of the omnibus policies, in which the OWWA allegedly practically called itself a government-owned-or-controlled corporation (GOCC).

The protesters asserted the need for an OWWA charter since the agency’s welfare services are being farmed out to other government entities such as the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

“Only the OWWA fund is left with OWWA,” CMA officer-in-charge Ellene Sana said.

The Omnibus Polices is now a hot issue among OFWs linked to the Web.

Nuqui pointed out that as a national government agency, or NGA, the OWWA will be entitled to an annual budget under the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

“Once that happens, we don’t know what will happen to the OWWA fund.” Nuqui said.

The NGOs expressed apprehension that once the accumulated fund goes into the national treasury, it could be used for items other than OFW welfare.

OWWA employees say the transformation of OWWA is already in process as they are being taught how to run accounting systems for NGAs.

Henry Roxas, a lawyer and former Kaibigan (Friends of Filipino Migrant Workers) president said that “there was never any legal basis for the collection of the $25 OWWA membership fee” that OFWs are required to pay.

He pointed out that the authority for the collection came from board resolutions and was not included in OWWA’s original charter.

“There is no legal basis for this collection,” he added.

He explained that while collections were mandated in Letter of Instruction 537, which created OWWA as an attached agency of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), it referred to collections from prospective employers. “When they could not collect from employers, they took it from the workers,” Nuqui said.

The advocates noted that three of OWWA’s 12-member board were absent when the policies were approved. Worse, Hong Kong-based OFW Carolina Carsola, who represents the land-based sector, had not been informed about the meeting.

Strengthening OWWA’s Responses

In a pamphlet introducing the new policies, Sto.

Tomas said, “the policies offer to further strengthen and solidify OWWA’s set of responses to the needs of a truly dynamic overseas employment labor market”.

“As we unveil these new policies to our publics, we are renewing our commitment to service excellence for our Bagong Bayani,” she added.

OWWA Administrator Virgilio Angelo added that the Omnibus Policies “characterizes the ‘heart and soul’ of the agency toward the attainment of its mission of a distinct government entity to properly serve the needs of overseas Filipino workers.”

But the advocates believe the policies were hurriedly drawn up.

Estrella Dizon-Anonuevo, who heads the Philippine Council for Reintegration (PhilCORE), said there was almost no mention of reintegration in the new policies, which makes it inconsistent with OWWA’s supposed direction to work for the welfare of OFWs, including looking after their welfare when they return to the country.

In the Omnibus Policies, membership in OWWA is limited only to working OFWs and not to those who have returned to the country.

According to Nuqui, Angelo has assured her that this oversight would be corrected with amendments to the newly passed omnibus policies. Nuqui said the advocates are assembling a legal team to challenge the Omnibus Policies. (Additional input from OFW Journalism Consortium, Inc.)