May 25, 2010

An Open Letter to Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III,

President-Elect, Republic of the Philippines

Dear Sen. Aquino,

First and foremost, we extend our deepest and sincerest congratulations on your
ascendancy to the highest-elected office of our beloved country through a democratic process
that every Filipino can take pride in for many generations to come. The first step inherent in the
process of transformation is recognizing the need for change – and our capacity to change for the
better! Thus, from this point onward, we are hopeful that inspired by your convincing victory
and leadership, every Filipino will assume his or her role and responsibility to change the status
quo by initiating positive changes towards a better and brighter Philippines, no matter where he
or she is, and regardless of what citizenship he or she now holds.

We, the Overseas Filipinos Worldwide (OFW), are a group of Filipinos based abroad and
in the Philippines, representing various organizations implementing projects in the Philippines
and in our host countries for many years now that are aimed to strategically harness the
Philippines’ migration gains into mechanisms for the development of the motherland and our
communities of origin.

Migration gains are mainly remittances by overseas Filipinos to their family members,
which are now in the region of USD17 billion and are the primary source of livelihood for
millions of Philippine households. At 10.8% of the country’s GDP, they are also the third
biggest source of the country’s foreign currency reserves and act as primary driver for our
economy, shielding us from bankruptcy during the financial crisis in 1997 and the current one.
The Filipino diaspora, estimated now at about 10 million working or residing in 239 countries
and territories worldwide, send back donations to various humanitarian causes, such as disaster–
relief, medical missions, schoolhouses, and other infrastructure. These contributions supplement
local and national government deficits and, as of 2003, have already amounted to USD218
million, per BSP figures in that year. We do not count here the investments made by OFWs in
real estate and the education and health of their family members, and the money spent on various
goods and services, as well as on construction, food, shelter, and other inflows that support
sectors like the airlines, shopping centers, and banks. Yet, after more than three decades of
overseas employment, we do not see genuine signs of poverty alleviation, and instead more and
more of our countrymen leave for work abroad.

Ironically, the Philippine model of overseas migration has become a model of sorts, for
other migrant-origin countries to emulate and even copy. This however does not tell the whole
story or reveal the other face of migration that has escaped the serious attention of past
administrations, specifically, the social costs that migration has bred since government-managed
deployment started in the early 70s and up to the present, where we now see at least 3,000 of

1
many of the best and brightest Filipinos leaving daily to take up jobs overseas, due to local
employment deficits. Other nations like South Korea, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Taiwan, who
once were labor exporting countries, have been able to get over their migration hump, as a result
of their governments’ consciously harnessing their workers’ remittances and investing them to
develop local infrastructure, shipyards, factories, and other industries. Convinced of the
effectiveness of government programs and also trustful of their leaders’ sincerity, these
countries’ expatriates and overseas workers, at great sacrifice, left their high-paying jobs
overseas and returned to their home countries to lend their talents and acquired expertise in
further helping their respective country’s leap towards developed status even working at low
salaries. India, another migrant-sending country, is also now going in that direction. These
examples serve to illustrate the dictum that migration should be temporary, that it must not be
used as a substitute for development. The desirable goal of countries wishing to be strong and
globally competitive must necessarily be self-sufficiency and the ability to provide its people
with necessary components needed for their human development.

The advent of a new administration, especially one under your inspired leadership, is a
good time to ask where the Philippines is going regarding migration, and to act accordingly.
Shall we continue to send out our people and rely on remittances and without any development
objectives in sight? Conversely, don’t we have the talent to formulate a road map towards self-
sufficiency over a period of time, in order that the hemorrhage of talents could be stopped, that a
crisis in our dysfunctional families and society at large could be averted, and so that our people
do not have to take migration as a forced option? If long-term migration goals are set now, the
government could in the meantime work on some basic but urgent deployment and migration
issues in order to clear the way towards having a genuine and serious program on translating
migration gains for use in human development. In view of this, we humbly suggest starting to
look at the following:

• The government must send clear and strong signals that migration and remittances are only
temporary measures to help the government prepare for a longer-term goal of self sufficiency,
in which Filipinos no longer look at migration as a forced option. This must be integrated in
Medium-Term Development Plans, which is currently being formulated by NEDA, and which
should also include how, in the meantime, gender-sensitive strategies, policies, and
mechanisms for the productive use and investment of remittances could be harnessed to
strengthen the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals.

• Create a position for a Special Presidential Adviser on Migration and Development, who will
work with a technical working group (TWG) composed of qualified individuals who have a
background in migration and development, including knowledgeable and committed migrant
leaders. Among others, the TWG could conduct studies, consultations, and discussions, and
come up with updated situationers and appropriate policy recommendations on how to
effectively translate remittances and migrant resources to develop local economies; and to
address social costs, facilitation of return migration, reintegration, mechanisms for the
counterparting of funds between Filipino diaspora groups, LGUs, and development agencies
for local and countryside development, incentives for OFW investments in agriculture, SME,
infrastructure, microfinance, cooperatives, and other sectors that need stronger funding
support. The work could take the form of draft legislation for study by Congress’s standing

2
 committee on OFWs or form the basis for an Executive or Administrative Order, whichever is
appropriate or workable. The committee’s work shall be purely consultative and should not
supplant the work of government migration agencies.

• Review and monitor the performance of government agencies in charge of migrant workers,
such as the POEA, OWWA, CFO, and the Department of Foreign Affairs, with a view to
strengthening these institutions, reducing wasteful and ineffective programs or duplication of
work, giving agencies needed resources and funds for effective implementation of programs,
and strengthening the capacity of their overseas offices to become centers of service to migrant
workers overseas.

• Departing OFWs contribute USD25 each as a requirement for departure and membership in
OWWA and entitlement of welfare benefits. The total corpus of this trust fund is already at
the level of at least PHP10 billion. The disposition and administration of this fund has been
subject of criticisms, as its use has not been transparent and shown susceptibility to
mismanagement. Specifically, reforms in OWWA should (1) impose strict criteria in the
process of selection of people who will sit in the Board of Trustees, such that only those
qualified and are committed to work for their constituents are appointed, e.g., women OFWs,
sea-based, land-based, etc. (2) OWWA proceedings should be made transparent and open to
public scrutiny, particularly the investment of the trust funds. (3) the incoming administration,
for the benefit of OFWs and through the working group, should require from the current
OWWA board an accounting of OWWA funds and how they were invested/used. To this end,
the most recent COA audit of migration agencies, like POEA, OWWA, DFA, and POLO
offices overseas, must be consulted.

• The Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) and the National Reintegration Center for
OFWs (NRCO) are two small agencies that are doing important work on mobilizing diaspora
contributions for development and assistance to OFWs who are reintegrating to Philippine
society after working abroad. The CFO, for instance, has submitted recommendations on how
gaps and barriers to enhanced diaspora contributions could be addressed, but these have never
been acted upon. The NRCO, in the three years it has been created, has given assistance and
referrals on livelihood and employment to OFW returnees affected by the global crisis. Their
work should be seriously looked into, and whenever necessary, the appropriate level of funds,
resources, and support should be given to these agencies.

• Lack of financial literacy or of the ability to use resources and incomes productively and
wisely has been highlighted as a major cultural barrier among not only OFWs but also for
most Filipinos. It prevents our people from improving their socio-economic conditions,
despite years of employment in the Philippines or overseas. This refers to lack of savings or
investment mindset and excessive spending on non-essentials. No less than an institutionalized
nationwide program on financial literacy will be able to address this and should include not
only OFWs but also members of their family. The BSP has been the lead government agency
that has conducted financial literacy seminars for OFWs and families since 2006 in more than
30 Philippine cities and 10 cities overseas. This program could be improved and expanded
through an impact assessment of the campaign and which might include providing resources
for enlisting the DECS to include financial literacy and migration as part of school curriculum,

3
 starting from grade school, or the LGUs, by including financial literacy and social costs of
migration in the Pre-employment Orientation Seminars (PEOS) conducted in their territories
for intending migrants.

As a final note, while the recommendations above address specific OFW issues, the
programs you had avowed to pursue in your electoral campaign on good governance—better
access to health, education, employment and livelihood, and business opportunities for all—are
all in the right track, constitute the basic elements for self-sufficiency, and provide viable options
to our citizens to remain in the country and to devote their talents and resources to developing
the homeland. On these, please be assured of our continued support.

Signed:

Doris Alfafara, Habagat Foundation, The Netherlands

Ren Arrieta, USA
Alex Veloso Bello, Saudi Arabia
Marvin Bionat, USA
Ding Bagasao, Economic Resource Center for Overseas Filipinos (ERCOF), Philippines
Jack Catarata, Germany
Basco Fernandez, Damayang Pilipino sa Nederland, The Netherlands
Lorna Lardizabal Dietz, FilipinaImages.com
Cristina Liamzon, Italy
Judith Puyat-Magnaye, USA
Vincent Mariel Rapisura, SEDPI Philippines
Leila Rispens-Noel, Wimler Partnership for Social Progress, Hongkong/Contact Person
Dennis Yaun, Luxembourg
James Zamora, Philippines

For reaction, please contact:

Leila Rispens-Noel

Kowloon, HONG KONG (SAR)

Mobile: +852 68976848
E-mail: leila.wimler@gmail.com