Spending the 2018 billion-peso budget for overseas Filipinos
During his second State of the Nation Address last July, President Duterte declared that he had “ordered the increase of our assistance to the OFWs from P400 million to more than P1 billion” because the OFWs are “our heroes” and “have sacrificed much for the country.” On Dec. 18, the Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant Workers Affairs of the Department of Foreign Affairs (OUMWA-DFA) held a “ceremonial signing of the revised guidelines” of the promised budget.
As a member of the Board of Trustees of the Center for Migrant Advocacy (CMA), an NGO that has been active for 15 years, and, as co-convenor of the Working Group on Migration (WGM) of the Department of Political Science of Ateneo de Manila University, I had the opportunity to attend this event. In this piece, I share the information I gathered and my thoughts on what the 2018 budget could mean for Filipino citizens, in general and overseas Filipinos (OFs), in particular.
GENEROUS PACKAGE
According to the DFA Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano, the aim of the budget increase of 150% for the assistance to nationals or ATN fund (from P400 million to P1 billion) and 100% for the legal assistance fund or LAF (from P100 million to P200 million) is to “serve our kababayans abroad — whether documented or undocumented — much quicker and better.” Details of the “revised guidelines” for the new ATN fund were presented by OUMWA Undersecretary Sarah Lou Arriola while guidelines for the LAF were presented by OUMWA Executive Director Raul Dado.
ASSISTANCE TO NATIONALS (ATN) FUND
The guidelines signal a very generous package for OFs especially OFWs. The ATN fund will now be available for services such as(i) door-to-door repatriation for distressed OFs (i.e from host country to the residence of the OF and not just the airport in Manila), (ii) cremation/embalming services and burial assistance in case of death, (iii) care packages and family visits for OFs on death row or life imprisonment or with life-threatening diseases, (iv) medical and hospitalization expenses for distressed OFs (including expenses of next-of-kin).
The fund may also be used for infrastructure support and capacity-building purposes of the DFA such as (i) opening and maintenance of shelters for OFs, (ii) hiring of additional staff and/or translators here or abroad, (iii) security needs in high-threat areas, (iv) ATN missions, mapping of operations and registration of OFs, (v) paralegal training for ATN personnel, and (vi) online case management system.
An expanded ATN fund is beneficial because existing funds such as OWWA funds are often available only for OWWA members and for registered/documented OFs. With the revised guidelines, even undocumented OFs are now assured of assistance. The increase is also warranted given that OFs in distress have been on the rise. As per data from OUMWA, the reach of ATN funds increased from 11,544 OFW-beneficiaries in 2016 to 14,995 OFWs in 2017, as of Dec. 12.
In 2016, ATN funds were also extended to 348 victims of human trafficking, and, from January to November 2017, to 9,140 “walk-in clients” with various needs.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE FUND (LAF)
In many countries, legal costs are very prohibitive.
The expanded LAF is thus beneficial especially for those who are detained in foreign host countries who cannot afford to pay for legal support.
According to OUMWA, as of December 2016, “18,641 Filipinos were detained in various parts of the world” and as of August 2017, there were 71 Filipinos on death row. Moreover, cases of OFs are wide-ranging: murder, “illegal recruitment, assault with a dangerous weapon, attempted rape, sexual abuse, drug trafficking, human trafficking, assault and battery, estafa, immorality.” The number of LAF beneficiaries have also been increasing, from 312 in 2016 to 685 in 2017, as of Dec. 12.
Like the ATN, the LAF is available for both documented and undocumented OFs who are “unable to engage the services of private counsel, and who is in a country where there is no system of legal aid or public defenders, or where there is no counsel de officio, or any lawyer provided by the foreign host government.” “Utmost priority” is given to “victims of trafficking in persons.”
The revised guidelines for the expanded LAF budget mean a more extensive coverage of services: (i) interpreters/translators, database and case management systems, (ii) public information campaigns and legal advice, and (iii) assistance for cases on appeal. Furthermore, the new guidelines “removed the caps for professional fees, filing and other court fees, incidental litigation expenses, bail bonds, preservation of evidence, witness protection, etc.”
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ISSUES
While the fund is clearly generous, there are at least three attendant, potential problems that government, overseas Filipinos and migration-related civil society groups must look out for: (i) corruption, (ii) politicization, and (iii) coordination issues.
The fund for 2018 is “more than 1 billion” and while the DFA Secretary and the OUMWA officials have vowed to “make sure there is no abuse and the funds are used progressively,” the fact of the matter is, corruption is endemic in this society, especially in government.
At first glance, having several budget items is commendable because it means that all needs of OFs are covered, but, it could also mean more opportunities for wastage and leakage. There must be mechanisms to make transactions transparent and government personnel accountable. One way to ensure transparency and accountability is to enhance the role of “independent” bodies (i.e non government and non-beneficiaries) in monitoring fund use — for example, through a participatory performance audit as what CMA did vis-à-vis POEA and OWWA services in the recent past. Said kind of audit is useful because the methodology for coming out with findings and conclusions about government performance is agreed upon by all involved and implementation is participatory. The end result is not simply to ascribe blame or find fault but to create spaces for public conversations — and ultimately, public decision-making — regarding improvements in service delivery.
Politicization of the fund is a problem because taxpayers’ monies are supposed to go to intended beneficiaries, regardless of political affiliation or loyalties. That foreign-based “Duterte diehard supporters or DDS” groups seemed to be the only OF groups represented at the Dec. 18 ceremonial signing (although I could be wrong) was not a very good sign of things to come. While these DDS groups certainly have a stake in the mobilization of the fund, they should not be allowed to monopolize it to the exclusion of non-DDS Overseas Filipinos. DFA will have to devise ways to make sure that said monopoly does not happen. Non-DDS groups like CMA must also continually engage DFA to make sure this does not happen.
Non-DDS overseas Filipinos must not feel that they are not entitled to said fund just because they have divergent political views (or no strong views about politics).
The final issue is also a longstanding one.
Mobilizing funds for OFs involves an array of government agencies here (DoLE-attached agencies such as POEA and OWWA and DFA-attached agencies such as OUMWA) and abroad (Embassies and attached agencies such as the Philippine Overseas Labor Offices or POLOs). Filipinos abroad are not supposed to bother with the delineations between these offices as Philippine embassies are said to be under the “one-country team approach” of Philippine government. This doesn’t mean, however, that coordination problems between offices have already been resolved. In this case, the OUMWA-DFA, as the lead administering agency, must make sure that said problems are avoided and that fund mobilization is done smoothly and effectively.
Aside from abovementioned potential problems, Philippine government will also have to consider the “bigger picture” in terms of rationalizing and improving domestic policy alongside foreign policy.
For example, if free (state subsidized) legal assistance is expanded for overseas Filipinos, should it not be expanded as well for Filipinos who have stayed behind? If legal assistance is made available for OFs accused of drug-related crimes, shouldn’t those accused of the same crimes here also be given their day in court instead of being subjected to tokhang operations, or worse, extrajudicial killings? If government is bent on assisting and freeing OFs who are on death row abroad, why is it pushing for the reimposition of the death penalty law here at home?
Our experience in protecting OFs in-distress must also inform how we treat vulnerable Filipino citizens here at home — and vice-versa. Government must seek not just to protect OFs and manage migration but also to achieve coherence in the local-national-international nexus.
The billion peso fund is a welcome development as it is a big deal for OFs particularly those needing assistance in situations of abuse or life-threatening harm.
Raised through taxpayers’ contributions, the fund should be directed at showing solidarity and seeking justice for distressed overseas Filipinos, instead of being framed as primarily an act of generosity by Philippine government. It must also be viewed in terms of the broader task of protecting Filipinos no matter where they may be — here or abroad.
Carmel V. Abao is a faculty member of the Political Science Dept of the Ateneo de Manila University. She teaches political theory and international political economy.
