Leader of the Opposition:
Good evening to everyone.
The opposition side firmly opposes the proposed establishment of the Department of OFW based on the
following issues:
Number 1, the Prime minister argued that the proposed establishment of the DOFW will result to the
streamlining of the overseas employment process by putting POEA, OWWA and other OFW related
agencies under one umbrella agency. It may sound borderline good, but if we would look into it, the
DOFW will:
1.) not streamline the process, but instead, will make it more burdensome for most OFWs.
Remember that each of the agencies that will be absorbed by DOFW performs specialized
functions, so as to cater to the different needs of the workers. If a worker has problems with his
remittances and benefits, there is the OWWA to cater to him. If he has something regarding
employment and deployment, POEA is there for that specific purpose. if he has a problem about
the working environment and policies abroad, the commission of Filipinos overseas is there----
and if there is an issue of maltreatment, the OFW command center is there for immediate
referral and action. The DOFW aims to streamline the process by merely putting together every
OFW-related department together assuming that there will be no integration issues---and
worse, it aims to concentrate all OFW concerns in one department when it could be facilitated
more efficiently in the different specialized agencies if left as they are with their specialized
functions.
2.) If hypothetically speaking, the DOFW will make it easier for OFW concerns to be processed ---
which it won’t, then why not make it a state policy then to just send all Filipinos abroad? The
government side apparently abhors admitting that the establishment of DOFW contradicts the
core purpose of the government: the purpose to repatriate our overseas Filipino workers---the
purpose to bring them home. The establishment of the DOFW encourages and makes it easier
for more Filipinos to work abroad, blind-sighted with the fact that we are also in need of
workers in our home country.
Number 2, the Prime minister argued about elimination of job redundancy. We counter argue that job
redundancy exists because it has to. Take for example the trust fund held by OWWA. If there is only one
team of, let’s say, accountants to manage the entire funding system of the DOFW, how riskier do you
think it will be had we just allowed the different agencies to exist independently. If we allow this to
materialize, co-mingling of funds will just be the tip of the iceberg. We are talking about greater
exposure to politicking and resource misappropriation. OFWs are the new heroes right? Then, it is
instances like this that we need to rationalize because the very concept of DOFW undermines their
efforts, wellbeing—not to mention, their finances.
Number 3, the Prime minister argued that with the establishment of the DOFW, illegal recruitment of
OFWs will be reduced and their safety and welfare will be prioritized. We can’t let you give credence to
these claims because: 1.) it’s speculative and 2.) the argument is void.
1.) This is speculation in light of how the government side operationalized the matter. They may
have given you the idea but since they failed to substantiate, let me enlighten you. The
government side argues that with the DOFW, they can go after illegal manpower agencies with
outstanding maltreatment cases. That’s basically their plan. This is something that can be done
by the POEA, should they be allocated with the necessary funds to operate. The establishment
of the DOFW will entail additional costs to integrate all involved agencies into a singular
department---costs which could be allotted instead to the POEA and other enforcement
agencies to go after the illegal recruiters. The DOFW, contrary to what the government side
might say, is not a prerequisite to protect the OFWs and their welfare.
2.) The argument is void because they didn’t factor in where the funding will come from. Sure, we
can say that as a body, they can go after those illegal agencies but we all know that there is a
limit on their allotments. After all the expenses of institutionalizing this DOFW, the assumption
is, the OWWA trust fund will be tapped to fund the operations of the DOFW. This is the risk of
mishandling that Franklin Drilon was arguing about in the August 27, 2019 senate press release.
The argument is void because the claim is only possible at the expense of the OFWs.
With all these said, we hold all the arguments of the government side void. What we propose instead is
the retention and empowerment of the existing OFW agencies. The issue here is not the inefficiency of
the OFW agencies but the promise of efficiency of DOFW. The existing agencies now carry with them 40
years’ worth of expertise in catering to the needs of the OFW. If the only incremental upgrade is the
promised additional protection of OFWs, then all that has to be done is to provide the existing agencies
with the funding to make it happen, not to make an entirely new Department and sacrificing the
expertise of the agencies and the purpose of the government to repatriate our OFWs.
