HUMAN RIGHTS

OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORKERS OR

THE MIGRANT WORKERS
AS MARGINALIZED GROUPS

PAUL CHRISTIAN M. VIERNES

LLB-MBA II

OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORKERS OR THE MIGRANT WORKERS

Migrant workers are generally known as the Filipinos who seek job
opportunities abroad. The International Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, hereinafter
known as Convention on Migrant Workers, defines Migrant Workers as
persons who are to be engaged, is engaged or have been engaged in a
remunerated activity in a state of which they are not nationals. (Art. 2,
Convention on Migrant Workers). The millions of Filipino job seekers
unable to obtain gainful employment in the Philippines are forced to go
abroad where jobs are readily available and the compensation substantially
higher than the workers in their country. Attracted by a substantially higher
compensation, women even with college degrees are willing to take menial
jobs as domestic helpers abroad. The migration of Filipino workers,
however, have resulted in problems, most of which have not been properly
addressed by the government and the Philippine society.
The impact of labor migration has been assessed from three vantage
points, namely: economic, political and social. In each area, the social costs
are tremendous due to the pain of being separated from their families,
emotional stress working in unfamiliar climate under a different culture.
There is a danger of broken families and breakdown of marriages due to
separation from their loved ones. The migrant workers run afoul of the
strange and unfamiliar laws in the foreign country. The laws and traditions
of many of these countries where Filipino workers secure their jobs are very
harsh on alien offenders. Some of these countries have very low standard of
justice to the great prejudice of Filipino migrant workers familiar with the
principle of due process.
Migrant workers are the most vulnerable to human rights violations.
One of the issues that make them most vulnerable or most marginalized
among other groups is the proliferation of illegal job recruiters who prey on

innocent people anxious to obtain lucrative jobs abroad. The undocumented

workers especially suffer most as they are taken advantaged of not only by
illegal recruiters, but also by their employers. Stories are common of victims
who sell or mortgage their property or part with precious possessions in
order to raise substantial sum of money demanded by the recruiters assuring
them of jobs abroad. In many cases, the jobs promised to them are nonexistent or that migrant workers were given less paying jobs than those they
have been contracted for. What is worse? Syndicates not authorized to
recruit labourers have been organized with the purpose of defrauding many
Filipino families. For all the heroic deeds and grim determination to work in
foreign lands, the prospective overseas workers have been defrauded by
Filipino unscrupulous labor contractors and recruiters.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the International
Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and the
Members of their Families in 1990. The Philippines ratifies the Convention
on November 15, 1993. In 1995, Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act
No. 8042, An Act To Institute The Policies Of Overseas Employment And
Establish A Higher Standard of Protection And Promotion Of the Welfare of
Migrant Workers, Their Families and Overseas Filipinos in Distress and for
Other Purposes. The law was designed to afford full protection to Filipinos
working abroad, organized or unorganized, and promote full employment
and equality of employment opportunities for all.
The Employment and Overseas Act (Republic Act No. 8040) has
failed in its objective since the labor migration involves a foreign element
that is, the workers are in a foreign country where there are different laws
and rules on labor and the workers are beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine
Law.
Complaints that reach the Commission on Human Rights and nongovernmental organizations reveal that overseas workers suffer from
maltreatment, physical abuse, rape or sexual abuse and sexual harassment,

violation of contract or contract substitution, delayed or non-payment of

salaries, underpayment of salaries, poor working conditions, illegal
dismissal, and abandonment by employer. The list of abuses on Filipino
migrant workers is limitless.
Not familiar with the customs and traditions of the country where they
are employed, migrant workers find themselves in conflict with local laws.
Many of the countries where Filipino migrant workers are employed are not
signatories to the laws of international human rights instruments such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The basic principles of
due process and equal protection of the law are not complied with.
Moreover, most of the countries where Filipino Migrant Workers are
employed have not ratified the Convention on Migrant Workers. From this
writing, only 5 or 6 countries have ratified the Convention.
How to assist and protect the migrant workers is an insurmountable
problem. The laws of the Philippines on protection of labourers cannot be
extended to them as they are in foreign country beyond Philippine
jurisdiction. Article XIII, Section 18 (3) of the Philippine Constitution
mandates the Commission on Human Rights to provide legal measures for
the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well
as Filipinos residing abroad. The measure that the Philippines may take to
assist the Filipino workers in trouble is to call the attention of the foreign
government of its obligation to comply with international instruments on
human rights if the said country is a signatory thereof. The Philippine consul
in the country to which he is assigned who is supposed to render assistance
to migrant workers are hardly sufficient. The Department of Foreign Affairs
may file a diplomatic protest, calling the attention of the foreign authorities
on the violation. This procedure is quite a delicate matter as it might
adversely affect the diplomatic relations with the Philippines and the foreign
country. The general posture of the Department of the Foreign Affairs is to

sacrifice the rights of Filipino workers for the sake of maintaining

harmonious relations with the foreign country.
An example is the case of Filipinos who were arrested for distributing
bibles, or missionaries in Saudi Arabia. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs
even blamed the Filipinos, who was quoted by the press blaming the arrested
Filipino nationals who should have known that only the Islam religion can
be practiced in that country. Fortunately, it was through the intercession of
U.S. President Clinton that the Filipino missionaries were released, together
with some American religious missionaries.
There is not much that Philippine Government can do to protect the
rights of Filipino workers abroad, especially when the foreign countries have
not ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Migrant
Workers and their Families and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.
Fortunately, in one case, a court litigation filed by Filipino migrant
workers reached the Philippine Supreme Court. In Cadalin, et al. vs.
POEAs Administrator, 238 SCRA 721 (1994), seven hundred twenty-eight
(728) Filipino workers were recruited to work in Bahrain by the
International Builders Corp. for its foreign principal, Brown and Root after
having

been

processed

by

the

Philippine

Overseas

employment

Administration (POEA) for their employment contracts were prematurely

terminated, their salaries, including benefits, differential pay, fringe benefits,
and SSS premiums not remitted to the SSS, the Filipino workers filed the
case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), as the
employees were already repatriated to the Philippines. Under the Bahrain
law, the filing of the case had already prescribed, but not under the
Philippine Law. The Supreme Court, ruling in favour of the Filipino contract
workers, declined to apply the foreign law (Bahrain), which is obnoxious to
the Philippine policy, as stated in the Philippine Constitution, protecting the
rights of labourers.

There can be no problem with have no solution. So what are the

remedies to assist our migrant workers? How to protect the rights of migrant
workers whose human rights have been violated abroad is quite a problem.
As already discussed, assistance to migrant workers abroad cannot be
effectively rendered as they are out of the jurisdiction in the Philippines.
Any assistance may be given to them by appealing to state authorities
through diplomatic channels. The Philippine Consul in the country where the
migrant workers are situated is duty-bound to assist them. The assistance can
be effective if the state authorities are complying with the obligations under
human rights instruments. It is quite unfortunate that most of the countries
where Filipino migrant workers are situated are not signatories to the basic
instruments of the International Bill of Human Rights.
The Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and
Degrading Punishment have established procedures on complaints for
violations of human rights. Through committees established, they conduct
inquiries. They may settle the cases amicably. In the event that no
satisfactory solution is arrived at, the committees submit their report to the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights. At most, the reports of the
committee are only recommendations. It is up to the state concerned in case
of a finding of human rights violations to comply with its obligations under
the international instruments on human rights. In that sense, the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights is a worldwide watchdog on
human rights.

G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986

RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONS. SERAFIN E. CAMILON and
RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as Judges of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal, Pasig branches, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the
SECURITIES &EXCHANGE COMMISSION, HON. EDMUNDO M.
REYES, as Commissioner of Immigration, and the Chief of Aviation
Security Command (AVSECOM), respondents.

FACTS:
Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr. was one of the two principal stockholders of
Trans-Insular Management Inc. and the Manotoc Securities Inc. (stock
brokerage house). He was in US for a certain time, went home to file a
petition with SEC for appointment of a management committee for both
business. Such was granted. However, pending disposition of a case filed
with SEC, the latter requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to clear
him for departure. Consequently, a memorandum to this effect was issued.
There was a torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc
Securities Inc. which was suspected to be fake. Six(6) of its clients filed
separate criminal complaints against the petitioner and Leveriza, President
and VP respectively. He was charged with estafa and was allowed by the
Court to post bail.
Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for permission to
leave the country stating his desire to go to US relative to his business
transactions and opportunities. Such was opposed by the prosecution and
was also denied by the judges. He filed petition for certiorari with CA
seeking to annul the prior orders and the SEC communication request
denying his leave to travel abroad.
According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a matter
of right, neither the courts that granted him bail nor SEC, which has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his
constitutional right to travel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners constitutional right to travel was violated.

HELD:
The Court has power to prohibit person admitted to bail from leaving
the country because this is a necessary consequence of the nature and
function of a bail bond. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make
himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence
operates as a valid restriction on his constitutional right to travel. In case he
will be allowed to leave the country without sufficient reason, he may be
placed beyond the reach of courts.

Reaction as to Manotoc Case:

The general rule is that all persons in custody shall be admitted to bail
as a matter of right. But this rule applies only to the following situations:
(a) before conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial
Court;
(b) after conviction by the courts mentioned in letter a and
(c) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Sec 4,
Rule 114, Rules of Court)
On the other hand, Section 5 (d), Rule 114 states that bail is
discretionary that the circumstance of his case indicates the probability of
flight if released on bail. This is now the time where bail becomes a matter
of discretion. In the case before us, it is proper for the court to deny the bail
for allowing the petitioner to post bail contradicts the ultimate meaning,
purpose and nature of bail. Under the Rules of Court, bail is the security
given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondman, to his appearance before any court as required under certain
specified conditions (Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court).
As the court has ruled, The condition imposed upon petitioner to
make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence
operates as a valid restriction on his constitutional right to travel. In case he
will be allowed to leave the country without sufficient reason, he may be
placed beyond the reach of courts.

Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial court and CA of the

urgency of his travel, duration thereof, as well as consent of his surety to the
proposed travel. He was not able to show the necessity of his travel abroad.
He never indicated that no other person in his behalf could undertake such
business transaction.
Article 3 Section 6 says The liberty of abode and of changing the
same... shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court...
According to Supreme Court, the order of trial court in releasing petitioner
on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the provision on
right to travel.
As Bernas said, the right to travel should not be construed as
delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to
carry their borders into effect in all criminal cases pending before them.
When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or judicial officer. And
when a person who is out of bail asks for leave to travel for business
reasons, it is within the prerogative of the court to decide regarding the
necessity of going abroad. It is right to hold the petitioners right to travel
when no good reason appears or when theres insufficiency of reasons or
when the granting of the permission to travel will impair the ends of justice.
It will as well put the rights of the interested parties into risk and could also
endanger their reliefs as to the case they filed against the petitioner in which
case the petitioner may escape and never return to the country. It is the duty
of the State to protect the vested rights of the victims of criminal cases
pending before the Court. It must be well-assured that these interested
parties were afforded with fair trial and that the prosecutory and adjucatory
powers of the State are exercised impartially. It should be decided without
prejudice to the rights of the complainants and the court must not also act in
favour of any of the parties involved in the case pending with biases.
In enforcing the Police Power of the state, it is important that the
Equal Protection Clause is equally and objectively exercised. To attain the
ends of justice the observation of the rights of both sides during trial and
prosecution in the case pending before any court should be at hand. Without
this, there will be miscarriage of justice and non-deliverance of proper
adjudication as to the merits of the case.