The study highlighted that migrants who go through the legal channels are not fully protected in the pre-migration stage. Although they go through the legal process, migrants encounter irregular practices, the most common of which is the rampant violation of the standard placement fee. As the study documented, migrants who were agency hires rarely paid the standard placement fee.

In part, this situation has arisen because many migrants were not aware of the standard placement fee – it is also possible that migrants did not bother to verify the standard fee because it is widely known that this is not observed. Rather than be discouraged, migrants addressed the problem by seeking means to fulfill the requirement.

In order to meet the placement fee, migrants sought the help of family members (oftentimes those based abroad) for loans. Those without such social capital seek or pawn some property, or seek loans (including “5/6” arrangements, or with lending agencies), or enter into salary deductions with the recruitment agencies. The study suggested that migrants did not inquire into other details regarding salary deductions – e.g., the terms of the deductions, how much deduction for how long.

The study did not uncover major problems during the pre-migration stage, except for the placement fee. Although some complaints were voiced out about long queues or fixers, the study did not find major or rampant irregularities in the conduct of government offices which migrants had to deal with. Also, migrants did not attribute serious problems in their dealings with their recruitment agencies. In certain cases, recruitment agencies “assistance” to migrants in the form of salary deductions or referral to placement agencies, or by providing lodging while migrants wait for deployment (in exchange for cleaning services on the part of migrants).

In view of the non-compliance of recruitment agencies on the one hand, and the acquiescence of migrant workers to the terms imposed by the agencies on the other, the standard placement fee has become pointless. It has lost its teeth and is treated more like a suggestion rather than as regulation. The study, thus, recommends a review of the policy and a careful study of viable alternatives (see Box 9). Direct hiring, for example, lowers the financial costs, but it also leaves migrant workers fully accountable for negotiating with the employers the terms or conditions of work. Highly skilled or professional migrants may benefit from direct hiring; safety nets may be necessary for the less skilled and those in vulnerable occupations such as domestic workers.

In addition to the placement fees, other fees related to the application process proved to be variable. Aside from the consideration that different countries require specific tests, medical exam fees were found to be variable. In some cases, recruitment agencies pay for the medical exam, but in most cases, migrants were responsible for covering this cost. Additional costs are also borne by migrants when they are required to undergo other tests, procedures or treatment, without which they would not be issued a medical certificate. Basic information on medical exams needs to be disseminated more widely so that migrants may be properly guided on the standard fees. Recruitment agencies only honor medical exams conducted by clinics and hospitals affiliated with them; hence, if migrants lodge an application with other recruitment agencies, they need to undergo another medical examination. In order to give migrants more options, the results of the medical exam undertaken by an accredited clinic or hospital should hold and should be honored by recruitment agencies.

Also widely violated are the OWWA membership fees of US$25 and PDOS fees of P100, which are supposed to be covered by the recruitment agencies. In practice, these costs are routinely passed onto migrant workers.

Altogether, the total costs for the migration project add up to a considerable investment. Migrants expect that they will recover their expenses once they are already abroad. While this may be true for nurses and other medical workers or for factory workers to some extent, the possibility to earn extra income from overtime is unlikely for others (e.g., domestic workers). The expected benefits of migration can only be reaped by migrants until after they have repaid the debts incurred to finance their migration. Furthermore, the possibility of pre-termination of contracts due to difficult working conditions could further erode the expected benefits of migration.

Not surprisingly, migrants’ preparations for their eventual departure center on shoring up much-needed finances to cover all the costs related to their departure. Those who cited non-monetary considerations typically mentioned prayers and strengthening their will and resolve to prepare for their venture into a foreign country. Discussions with family members seem very limited, especially among male migrants. Among women migrants, there were more indications of discussing their migration with family members, especially in explaining the reasons for their departure to the children.

Information Programs and Migrants’ Rights Education

As mentioned earlier, migrants’ personal networks, mostly family members (especially those based abroad), were important sources of information in the pre-migration stage. For prospective migrants, the key issue was finding a recruitment agency and verifying with POEA whether they were dealing with a legitimate agency. Once migrants file an application with recruitment agencies, it appears that migrants do not actively seek out relevant information. Relatives and friends working abroad and recruitment agencies are the major actors that play a prominent role as migrants prepare for overseas employment. Apart from providing information, migrants tend to rely on the former as sources of financial assistance.

According to the study, government agencies and NGOs hardly figure in the migrants’ orbit of information sources in the pre-migration stage. Thus, even if POEA has various information programs (Interview, 9 September 2004), basic information (such as standard placement fees) does not reach the migrants. Although there are those who have approached the POEA with reports of illegal exaction and irregularities, they were not inclined to pursue cases against errant agencies for fear that this would prejudice their migration chances.

As the study has demonstrated, migrants tend to have an unquestioning stance vis-à-vis recruitment agencies. Aside from the placement fees and other requirements, migrants also tend to be unquestioning regarding the work contract. Also disturbing is the view of migrants that the standard employment contract is likely to change when they reach the destination countries – this also puts into question the usefulness of the standard employment contract as a regulatory measure. The lack of options in the country contributes to the “no-choice” situation that migrants find themselves in. Information is a basic tool to empower migrants. Given migrants’ tendency to rely on their personal networks for migration information, this implies combining different approaches to get to migrants – mass media for general information; Internet sites; dissemination of key messages via stickers, posters; the use of respected public figures as spokespersons to deliver key messages; and community-based information programs. Partnerships with local governments would be critical in initiating and sustaining community-based information programs towards migrant empowerment.

Recommendations for PMRW and Migrant NGOs