When OFWs refuse to be repatriated

When a government exercises extraordinary diligence, to protect its nationals who are migrant workers in a country that is beleaguered by a raging revolt, may that labor-sending government compel its workers to be repatriated?

And if the workers insist to continue working and decide to remain in the labor-receiving country, notwithstanding the grave and imminent danger to their life and security, is the labor-sending government relieved from its obligation to help its own nationals from then on?

In the light of our Constitution and social and labor laws, the answer to both questions is big and unequivocal ‘No’. Indeed, the Philippine government spent millions in chartering a luxury liner that could accommodate more than two thousand passengers, in order to fetch the Filipinos in Libya. It turned out that only about 500 boarded the vessel. Many OFWs opted to remain. Some of them only sent home their wives and young children. A number of breadwinners decided to stay put come hell or high water. Does the government have coercive powers to implement a forced repatriation?

No, the Philippine government cannot compel any OFW, even if it invokes its inherent police power. It is the individual’s basic right to choose for himself and there is no Constitution nor statute that can override his fundamental freedom of choice. It is his own life and livelihood that are at stake.And he cannot be deprived of these without due process of law.

That is why perhaps, if we stray a little farther, and stretch our argument, to stress a point, that suicide is not a crime. One can take his own life, and if he is successful, the government would have none to arrest, prosecute and jail. Thus, if we aver that remaining in Libya, under a state of war is a virtual suicide, then we cannot jail a Filipino for making that choice for himself. Of course, the government shall leave no stone unturned in persuading him to choose repatriation, and if he still opt to remain, to provide him with all assistance to prevent or to mitigate damages arising from his choice.

No, the Philippine government is not relieved of its duty to extend to OFWs all forms of assistance even if they already refused repatriation. The duty of government is to “afford full protection’’ under all circumstances, and without any conditions. The government should beg or borrow, plead for mercy or kneel before kings and sultans just to spare the life of a Filipino who was arrested, prosecuted and found guilty of drug trafficking, or of killing his or her employer in crimes of passion.

Sometimes, we are being put to task by philosophers and kings for defending the life of a drug convict, for pleading to spare a murderer. But that is the culture ingrained in the very soul of Filipinos, to defend a compatriot guilty or innocent.

I have my own personal view on this, which is different from the official position, but my view is irrelevant in the light of the overriding mandate of our laws and culture to fight for the life even of a convicted Filipino felon. We do not ask whether our compatriot is guilty or not.

We just have to beg foreign governments to spare his life, to extend to him some form of clemency, whether he deserves it or not. We send all levels of emissaries, envoys and eminent statesmen, we spend a lot of money, efforts and goodwill just to save a drug user or mule. For such is the mandate of governments and nationals expect no less from their leaders and homeland. Sometimes, it seems already some forms of aberrations.

We get criticized and ridiculed by men and institutions for such an overprotective concern for our people. But that is the nature of our soul and character as a people. To do otherwise is to cease being us.

* * *

Email: [email protected]