Although the Philippines started out with a market-orientation, the labor migration program increasingly included provisions for the welfare and protection of migrant workers and their families. The development of government agencies tasked with specific functions reflects this trend: POEA takes care of the regulation of the migration industry; OWWA takes care of the welfare of OFWs while they are abroad and the families left behind, and the Office of the Undersecretary of Migrant Workers’ Affairs (OUMWA) provides legal assistance to OFWs in distress. The Philippines was the first country of origin in Asia to have a piece of legislation, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (Republic Act 8042), providing for protection that should be accorded OFWs and overseas Filipinos, from pre-departure to return and reintegration issues. The Philippines is also one of 27 countries (as of 9 December 2004) that have ratified the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Rights of All Migrants and Members of Their Families (www.december18.org, accessed 12 December 2004).

Problems, however, continue to hound pre-departure processes. While the legal and institutional framework of a safe and orderly migration is in place, the implementation and enforcement of their provisions are uneven. The government’s commitment to protect migrant workers can also be compromised by its interest to sustain overseas employment. Sec. 2 (c) of RA 8042 states that “… the State does not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national development.” However, since the economic crisis in Asia in 1997, the government has reframed its position on labor migration. A target of sending a million workers every year has been set by the Arroyo administration. The previous discourse of migration as a temporary measure has been reframed into a discourse of migration as a reality in the age of globalization. In the POEA Annual Report 2003 (p.4), Labor Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas stated that:

Where the state may be remiss or lacking in action, an active and vibrant NGO community working for migrants’ rights steps in, to remind the government of its responsibility to its nationals working abroad. Migrant NGOs have been at the forefront in the promotion of migrants’ rights education. The development of migrant associations or self-organized groups by migrant workers themselves is also significant in engaging the state to assume more responsibility to OFWs.

Safeguards to protect migrants, however, are diminished by other factors. The participation of the migration industry in labor migration is perceived to be a source of many irregular practices that adversely affect migrant workers. The migration industry has been an important stakeholder in the labor migration program since the 1970s. The recruitment agencies came into the picture due to the rising demand for Filipino workers. Reports of abuses by recruitment agencies impelled the government to regain recruitment and placement functions, but the demand was more than the government could handle (Sto. Tomas, 2002). As a result, recruitment agencies recovered their role as middlemen and the government then concentrated on regulating the migration industry.

Presently, there are 1,234 licensed agencies, which handle the land-based sector, and 342 manning agencies, which take care of the placement of sea-based workers (Table 2). The number of unlicensed agencies is not known but is suspected to be quite significant. Moreover, the situation is compounded by tie-ups between unlicensed agencies and their licensed counterparts.

To weed out unscrupulous agencies, POEA introduced new and more stringent rules which took effect on 24 May 2002. Aimed at strengthening the safety nets for aspiring migrant workers, the new rules imposed stiffer requirements for recruitment agencies – an increase in capitalization and financial requirements and higher levels of deployment, among others. The fewer new licenses granted in 2003 – 85 compared with 181 new ones issued in 2002 (POEA Annual Report 2003, p. 23) – is one of the immediate consequences of the new rules. As explained by a POEA official, the stringent rules make it difficult for new recruitment agencies to enter the field, but once they pass the test, the rules are intended to make it easier for agencies to operate within the legal framework (Interview, 9 September 2004). To ensure compliance, the POEA requires new applicants for licensing to attend an orientation seminar (specially, the manager, sole proprietor or chief executive officer must attend the seminar) before a license is issued. According to the POEA official, in the past, those in the recruitment business were not aware of the rules and regulations, which they usually relegate to their lawyers; some of them were not aware that their agencies had link-ups with unlicensed operators (Interview, 9 September 2004).

The various inspections conducted by the POEA in 2003 revealed a rather high level of infraction committed by licensed agencies. For example, of the 985 agencies inspected and monitored, 516 (i.e., 52.3 percent) were suspended due to recruitment violation cases; 24 were suspended for failure to replenish bonds. Of the 7,480 ads placed by licensed agencies in 2003, 391 ad violations were recorded (POEA Annual Report 2003, pp. 24-25). Indeed, as the POEA official shared, if the new rules are evaluated in terms of the number of violations reported, there is not much difference under the new rules. In fact, the number of cases docketed (i.e., those cases that will be subject to investigation) have remained the same. What has increased is the number of voluntary conciliation - i.e., the number of complaints increased, but the agencies tend to reach an agreement with the complainant. It is possible that the same or even greater number of violations that have been reported after the new rules took effect indicate that the latter have been effective in drawing attention to the violations, or that workers have become more aware that there are ready remedies that they can access.

According to a key informant from POEA, the most common reason for the cancellation of permit to operate is excessive collection (Interview, 9 September 2004). Cancellation is meted out as a penalty for the following: first serious offense, or upon the third less serious offense, or if the violation adversely affected five or more complainants. As she explained, under the new rules, it is easier to cancel the licenses of erring agencies, based on a classification of offenses and schedule of penalties (Interview, 9 September 2004). All the other irregularities committed by recruitment agencies revolve around fees. If it is not excessive collection of fees, it is premature collection of fees, non-issuance of receipt, acts of misrepresentation, and contract substitution (Interview, 9 September 2004).

The views of the migration industry on the impact of the new rules differ. An officer of a manpower association considered the new rules heavy handed and burdensome. He did not agree with the idea of canceling the license on account of one violation. In his observation, when a license is cancelled, the recourse is simply to buy a new one using a different name. As he explained:

For him, the new rules do not redound to better worker protection. Those who had been suspended just buy a new license, and in the end, it is a money-making exercise (Interview, 31 May 2004).

The gap in enforcement, particularly in going after the wrongdoers, is suggested by the small number of persons arrested and establishments closed in relation to the cases filed or the number of victims (Table 3). Part of the problem is the reluctance of workers to file formal charges. POEA does receive inquiries from migrants asking about the legal placement fees. Although workers complain about the excessive fees charged by recruitment agencies, they would rather not file a case for fear of prejudicing their chances to leave for abroad. Some accept the conditions as long as they can leave for abroad; those who usually file a complaint are the ones who paid a lot of money but were unable to leave. Unless there is a complaint backed up by evidence, POEA cannot just file a case against the agency; otherwise, it will be sanctioned by the Ombudsman. Thus, while they receive many complaints, unless complainants file an affidavit, POEA is unable to pursue these cases (Interview, 9 September 2004).

The anti-illegal recruitment campaign, a major program in the pre-migration stage was reinforced by Executive Order No. 325, issued on 9 July 2004, with the creation of the Presidential Anti-Illegal Recruitment Task Force (PAIRTF). Among PAIRTF’s tasks are: the conduct of surveillance and entrapment operations of persons who are allegedly involved in illegal recruitment, investigations and speedy prosecution of illegal recruitment cases, and coordination with other agencies involved in the campaign against illegal recruitment.

The recruitment and placement agencies are not the only the ones engaged in the business of labor migration, although they are the major players. Other related-businesses are also involved, including:

Travel agencies and lending agencies are also linked and networked with recruitment agencies. With an annual deployment of over 800,000 every year (and this is legal deployment alone), the various businesses generated by labor migration can be considerable.

As noted earlier, after three decades of overseas employment, the idea of working abroad has caught on in the Philippines. All regions of the country have now been touched by labor migration (Asis, forthcoming). More importantly, with networks of families and friends established abroad, potential migrants have access to migration information, resources and assistance that can lay the groundwork for further migration.