Mandatory Insurance for land-based OFWs (continuation)

As we reported in our earlier Thursday column, last November 19th, the bicam approved the amendments to the Migrants’ Act, RA 8042, including the mandatory insurance for land-based migrants that migrants and their advocates campaigned so hard against.

Here are the rest of the details of that bicam decision-making session that Ms. Ellene Sana of the Center for Migrants’ Advocacy shared through email. As we wrote earlier, women from the APL (Alliance of Progressive Labor), MARINA, port workers and other affiliate groups, trooped to the bicam venue to register their presence and opposition to the provision of mandatory insurance before the bicam members.

We continue Ellene’s account where she mentioned their engagement about this provision with Representative Edcel Lagman:

“Finally, Rep. Edcel reiterated his statement during the last bicam—(that) the OFWs are against it, the government agencies are against it and now, even the recruiters are withdrawing their support to it [on that day, PASEI, the biggest network of recruitment agencies, issued a press statement to this effect with a commitment to continue the practice of securing insurance for OFWs on voluntary basis; click on link for their statement: http://globalnation .inquirer. net/news/ breakingnews/ view/20091117- 236810/Recruiter s_take_back_ insurance_ proposal_ for_OFWs].

He asked himself and colleagues again—what do we do in this situation? To which I quickly answered, you can delete the proposal. And we went through the same arguments until finally, Rep. Edcel asked again (to break the impasse he said, since our conversation was going nowhere and no one was yielding), whether we were amenable to having ( the mandatory insurance provision ) for a trial period of 3 years subject to mandatory review, even earlier than 3 years if there is motu propio of violation i.e., is passed on to the worker.

Upon SMS consultations with colleagues outside and those who were not there as well, I told the bicam members that we are not amenable to the proposal for the reasons we have cited. We want it scrapped.

So that was how we ended. I left the room. They started the meeting. I reported to the group waiting outside. After sometime, the bulk of the group decided to go home, (some) stayed with me until the bicam was finished at almost 12 midnight.

One by one the bicam members came out of the venue—first was Rep. Edcel—he confirmed that the meeting was over. He went on to assure us again that they would be strictly monitoring the implementation of the insurance provision under the joint congressional committee. Next to come out was Rep. Rex Gatchalian who said the same. Then Sen. Jinggoy who said the same stressing the safety mechanisms they put in place to allay our fears that the premium will ultimately be passed on to the workers ... “We decided to go home. It was a long day for all of us. We were exhausted.”

Ellene subsequently outlined the next steps that can be taken to respond to the bicam decision about the mandatory provision. “What is next?

“The bicam version will be finalized and sent back to the respective chambers for final approval —first in the house, then transmitted to the senate and finally to Malacañang for signing into law. GMA can sign it, or veto it. if she does not act on it, it still automatically becomes a law. We will request for the copy of the final version so we know exactly how things are. We will also request congress that we take part in the crafting of the IRR to which Sen. Jinggoy said it may be possible. We must remind them all that it better work for the benefit of the OFWs or else kawawa na naman ang OFWs ...

As for the OFWs –please be more vigilant. Be confident in standing up for your rights.when the law says you are not supposed to pay, then don’t pay! all for now. salamat sa mga sumama sa kampanyang ito … magpahinga muna tayo ( Ellene).

In the final section of her email, Ellene mentioned the other amendments approved by the bicam as follows: Section 2 on statement of principles, Section 3 on definition of terms, Section 4 on deployment criteria, Section 5 on termination of ban on deployment, Section 6 on illegal recruitment—including the repro scam and other unlawful acts including loan scams and decking system for medical tests, monopoly on tests and other skills trainings, passing on fees to workers including that for the insurance ... it included also stiffer sanctions against recruiters and juridical bodies including other agencies like DOLE and POEA.

Other amendments included those for Section 7 on penalties—imposing stiffer and higher penalties; Section 10 on money claims—amendment was silent on the refund for the unexpired portion claims; Section 13—on free legal assistance; Section 16—on mandatory repatriation of underage migrants imposing stiff penalties for recruiters concerned; Section 19, Section 20 , Section 23—on agencies of government–POEA, OWWA; adding on DOH and regulation re medical testings, LGUs; Section 25—on legal assistance fund—regular appropriations in the GAA subject to finance and performance audit, on uses of LAF; Section 32—on governance structures of OWWA, POEA and seats for OFWs—in terms of process and selection; section 33 on report to congress; section 35 on exemption on fees, new section on mandatory insurance, new section on creation of a joint congressional oversight committee; a new section—IRR crafting 60 days after effectivity, and a new section—funding of P25M for budget of oversight committee.