MPI Study on OWWA

A couple of months ago the Washington-based Migrant Policy Institute (MPI) released a study on OWWA. Titled "Protecting Overseas Workers: Lessons and Cautions from the Philippines " the paper was written by MPI's Dovelyn Rannveig Agunias, together with Neil G. Ruiz of the Brookings Institute.

Following are my reactions:

1. It is surprising to note that as of May 2007, OWWA reported having just over a million members. Those numbers almost just equal the number of Overseas Filipinos in Saudi Arabia.

2. Spending only 3 percent of the Fund balance for services to members and their beneficiaries is a disservice. Direct services to members and their beneficiaries must be given first priority; achieving Fund stability must only come second.

3. The OFW OWWA members must not be tasked to raise the Ten Billion Pesos ($200 million) needed to repatriate OFWs in the Middle East in case of civil disturbance. What must be done is for the government to increase the amount of annual Emergency Repatriation Fund appropriation required under RA 8042, which is currently set at 100 million pesos per year. Portion of the Foreign Exchange savings realized by government from OFW remittances must be set aside for this purpose.

4. The 10 billion pesos set aside for use in case of mass repatriation must instead be used to start up an OFW Cooperative Savings and Insurance System that will provide savings, remittance, pension and insurance services to the member-owners. An OFW Healthcare system, which should address the healthcare needs of retired OFWs including the construction of an OFW hospital, should also be considered. If these types of services are provided, it may not even be hard to ask the member-OFWs to increase their annual contributions.

5. OWWA’s role under RA 8042 is to manage the contingency fund needed for large-scale repatriation. RA 8042 provided for the sources of that fund, and OWWA members’ contribution is not one of them. OWWA, as the lead agency during the repatriation of Filipinos from Lebanon in July last year, should not have used 169 million of OWWA fund. The 169 million should have come from the Emergency Repatriation Fund, which is being given an appropriation of 100 million pesos every year.

6. Administrator Marianito Roque was quoted as saying that the repatriation program, which aims to “facilitate the immediate repatriation of distressed and physically ill contract workers, as well as the remains of those who die while working abroad” as the backbone of the agency. This is great, but is not what we see in Saudi Arabia. In many cases, it is the Filipino community who takes care of their fellow distressed OFWs and raises the money for their tickets. There were even cases where POLO and OWWA officers refused to entertain distressed OFWs saying their safe house is already full. Most recent of these cases is that of Catherine Sarabia in Riyadh.

7. The 75 million disbursements on loans to members must not be classified as expenses as those are to be repaid by the borrowers at a later date.

8. I agree that OWWA must consult extensively with different stakeholders, especially the OFWs on key migrant related issues. This is one area where OWWA has miserably failed, both at home and onsite.