OFWs and mandatory insurance

They campaigned, they stayed up late until the bicam ended their evening deliberation about the amendments to RA 8042, the Migrants’ Act. At the end of that long November 18th night, the bicam approved the proposed amendments, sadly, including the mandatory insurance for landbased OFWs hired by their recruiters that migrants and their advocates have been campaigning against.

The migrants themselves were against this mandatory provision (the government agencies –DOLE, POEA, and OWWA were also against the mandatory nature of it) shortly before the bicam deliberation, the recruiters’ group were reported to be ready to withdraw their endorsement for this specific mandatory insurance proviso (per press statement of PASEI on that day, they are withdrawing their support to the proposed mandatory insurance). If the main migration players were against this particular provision, why did the bicam approve this provision? For whom is this provision after all?

That our people may know and understand what exactly happened, we asked permission from Ms. Ellene Sana of the Center of Migrant Advocacy, to reprint portions of her account of that fateful November 18th bicam session that she shared earlier with several migrant advocates and organizations. Ellene consented but stressed that their campaign was a collective effort (refer to list of signatories to the statement submitted to the bicam at www.pinoy-abroad. net.). Ellene’s report also informs all about what steps can be taken next, after her recommended period of rest, until the next round of advocacy for migrants’ protection resumes.

Here are excerpts of Ellene’s detailed report: “… some 150 of us, mostly from the APL (alliance of progressive labor), APL women, marino, port workers and other affiliate groups, trooped to the bicam venue to register our presence to the bicam members. We had a streamer to convey our main concern — no to OFW compulsory insurance scam! Earlier that day, we also provided the bicam members with copies of statement, which was an updated version of the last one we submitted during their previous bicam in October.

Before the bicam started, several of us went inside to say hello to the legislators. We were met by Cong. Way Kurat, chair of the house committee on overseas workers affairs. We told him we are there to lend support to the efforts of bicam to approve the much needed amendments to RA 8042 which we have been working on together with them, but we take exception to the proposal on the mandatory insurance. Cong. Way Kurat said our concern was noted then he asked us to join them for dinner. We declined the offer, went out and joined our colleagues outside and decided to revisit the issue.

We formed a circle and started our discussions…a little later, a staff of Sen. Jinggoy came and told me to go to the meeting room because the senator has some questions. The senator asked me why we were there in good number (during the last bicam, I was solo). He reminded me that they were not immune to our concerns, that in fact they were doing this for the OFWs hence they even allowed me to make an intervention during the October bicam (which was not usual).

I told him it was appreciated. I went on to say that we were there to lend support to the bicam in approving the needed amendments to RA 8042 except the proposal on the insurance and we went through the same arguments that we had during the last bicam — they see the proposal as positive, they see it as something to benefit the OFWs, that it is protection to OFWs...and that they provided more than enough safety nets/ mechanism in the law to make sure it is not passed on to the workers and that it does not become simply an additional layer or party obstacle to the OFW...that it really becomes beneficial to the OFWs...they asked to give it a chance....and we see it as otherwise... . that it is the recruiters who stand to benefit so why legislate it, that the state should not relinquish its duty to protect, that at best it can only be voluntary because there are already provisions for the same except that it is not working out efficiently hence must be addressed such as the OWWA and the insurance is no solution to it, that while we can understand that technically since the proposal is contained in both versions of the House and the Senate then it would be acted upon. To which I argued that we believe these things are not written on stone and that we are still hoping and praying for the wisdom of the bicam members, etc. Unfortunately, I think they were of a mindset to approve all the proposals including the insurance and no amount of argumentation can make them change their minds.” ( To be continued)

* * *

Email: [email protected]