The deployment ban should not be withdrawn

The problem with this country is that we do not have a sense of an over-all purpose. We do not have a clear vision of what we really intend to be as a nation and as a people. All our moves are, sorry to say, confused, incoherent and, at times, contradictory and exasperating.

 Many decisions are politicized. Whenever a right move is done and it is immediately criticized by pressure groups, the move is then withdrawn. The ban against deployment to 41 countries was a correct move made at the most appropriate time. It was intended for a good purpose and aimed at helping our migrant workers, a concrete step at shielding them from harm and even from death. And now the clamor to suspend that ban or withdraw it altogether?

 The ban was in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution that gives an uncompromising mandate on the state to afford full protection to labor, local or overseas, organized or unorganized. That move was strategic, proactive and consistent with our fundamental values and basic state policies. It was designed to gain for our migrants and for country a sense of self-respect and also a concrete and adequate safety net, in the light of many actual cases of trafficking, illegal recruitment, exploitation, oppression and dangers that our OFWs are suffering. 

 And now, the DFA is asking that POEA should defer the implementation of the resolution imposing the ban. This is what exasperates the minds of the conscientious citizenry. Why is a co-equal branch of the Executive Department interfering in the Department of Labor and Employment’s exercise of its official function? Was the DFA not fully aware that the ban was not the Labor Secretary’s unilateral act but the collegiate decision of the POEA Governing Board, composed of the government, the labor sector, the manning agencies and recruitment sectors, and was in fact, the result of a long and tedious process of data-gathering, consultations with all stakeholders?

 Moreover, isn’t the DFA fully aware that the ban was the result of its own failure to negotiate for bilateral labor agreements with the covered destination countries, in order to protect the dignity, basic rights and welfare of our OFWs? Is the DFA not the agency that directly supervises the ambassadors and consul-generals, who have failed to certify, as demanded by RA 10022. The law orders them to certify that the countries covered by their missions, including the 41 countries, are compliant with our basic labor standards. The burden is on their shoulders to make those certifications. The POEA waited for more than one year for these documents. 

 And now, why should the DFA ask for the suspension of the implementation of the law that the DOLE and the POEA are merely complying with? Is there no process of consultations among members of the same Cabinet, in order to avoid this embarrassment of one and the same government? The complaints against the ban mostly emanated from the recruiters and manning agencies whose brisk and lucrative businesses were threatened by the POEA’s uncompromising move. Why should our government withdraw a correct policy decision simply because of pressures from vested interests?

 Our President, who is being overwhelmed with so many vital and critical decisions, should be given all the facts. Malacañang should not be drawn into making some moves that would send the wrong signals to the people. It should sustain the propriety of the ban. That decision to issue a ban was delegated by law to the POEA Governing Board, headed by the Labor Secretary. The secretary is an alter ego of the President. Her decisions should be deemed the decision of the President. If the President would uphold the Justice Secretary on the travel ban against GMA, he should also uphold the DOLE Secretary on the ban of deployment to the 41 countries.

Should the ban be subjected to a moratorium, a suspension, or worse, an outright withdrawal, then we shall again become the laughing stock among the family of nations. We would not only be among the most corrupt nations in the world, or among the top ten worst countries to do business with. We would also be seen as virtually unwilling, incapable or hesitant to uphold our own laws to protect our own migrant workers. We would be a nation without a clear purpose.