The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration:

From the Eyes of Selected Overseas Filipino Workers

Center for Migrant Advocacy1

August 2008

1
Center for Migrant Advocacy. This is a CMA project supported by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
(FES).
1
 Part 1: Introduction

Background of the study

The Center for Migrant Advocacy Philippines, Inc. (CMA) is a non-stock, non-profit
non-government organization duly organized as an independent policy advocacy group. It
is committed to the promotion of rights and interests of overseas Filipinos; particularly the
disadvantaged and marginalized sectors (CMA, 2007). Towards this mandate, CMA
networks with organizations from government, non-government and civil societies in the
Philippines and overseas in advancing the cause of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).

The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) is one of the many

partners that CMA works with in advancing the advocacy for OFWs. Originally known as
the Welfare Fund, OWWA was created by then Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos
through the Letter of Instruction No. 537, Presidential Decree No. 1694 on November 1,
1977. Over the years, Presidential Decree No. 1809, Executive Order No. 195 and
Republic Act No. 8042 amended the letter of instruction. According to these legal bases,
a Board of Trustees is presently managing OWWA. From as far back as 2001, this Board
is beset with many formal and informal complaints from various OFWs and groups
(Ganapin, July 2004). For over a decade now, OFWs have been calling for OWWA
transparency and restructuring2. On September 2003 OWWA unilaterally promulgated
new Omnibus Policies. Since 2004, the Philippines Migrants Rights Watch, Inc. (PMRW),
other groups and OFWs have been battling the OWWA Board in court to challenge the
legal premise of the Omnibus Policies and raise serious questions on some of the major
provisions of the Omnibus Policies that do not promote the interest of OFWs. As this
lawsuit awaits resolution, CMA, with support from its partners here and abroad, initiates a
new campaign to explore the legislative platform to find solutions to major issues on
OWWA to make it truly a government welfare agency for OFWs.

The campaign begins with a survey conducted among OFWs regarding their
perceptions on OWWA and how it works towards its mandate. It is hoped that based on
this survey, CMA can concretize a legislative proposal to restructure OWWA.

Objectives

General objective: To formulate a legislative agenda for the structuring of the

Overseas Workers Welfare Administration.

Specific objectives:
1. To determine the proportion of OFWs who are aware of the various services
that OWWA is mandated to provide for them,
2. To explain the perceptions of selected OFWs on various aspects of the
operations and services provided by OWWA and
3. Identify potential areas to improve the quality of services provided by OWWA.

Methodology

2
On February 2003, A Call to Action for OWWA Transparency and Restructuring was released,
signed by more than a thousand OFWs
2
 Design: This was an electronic survey conducted to OFWs in July 2008. The
questionnaire was uploaded in www.online-survey.net, www.pinoy-abroad.net and
www.patnubay.com. It was also distributed by individual emails to OFWs. Accomplished
questionnaires from the online-survey.net were automatically electronically analyzed.
Those accomplished through emails and from the other sites,www.pinoy-abroad.net and
www.patnubay.com were submitted by email to CMA. The data then were entered in the
online-survey for data analysis together with the rest of the accomplished forms.

Population and sampling procedure used: This study did not attempt to cover the
population of more than 4 million OFWs deployed in various parts of the world. However,
through the available websites of CMA and its partner agencies, an invitation to
participate in the survey was sent to all OFWs registered in the latter’s email lists.

Based on accomplished questionnaire, a total of 400 OFWs completed the survey.

Respondents represented men and women of all ages, working in the Middle East, Asia,
Africa, Canada and Europe, in both high-skilled and low-skilled job sectors.

Data collection procedure: Appendix 2 presents the questionnaire used in this

electronic survey. The instrument was composed of 39 questions answerable by “yes,”
“no” and “I don’t know.” The questions focused on four major areas regarding OWWA
operations namely membership, benefit packages, administration of the Board of
Trustees and communication line between OWWA and the OFWs. The response format
was limited to “yes,” “no” and “I don’t know” to create a group of categories reflective of
levels of awareness on the OWWA operations. The last question (item 40) was on
demographic information dealing with respondents’ country of assignment, type of work,
gender and civil status that were offered optional.

Analysis of data: Since all the information generated could be grouped into “yes,”
“no” and “I don’t know,” all data were considered nominal variables. They were
summarized in terms of frequency and percentage distributions. Patterns from these
distributions were inferred to describe the general perceptions of respondents on the
OWWA operations.

Scope and delimitations: This study was an electronic survey and the search engines
were limited to CMA and its partner individuals and agencies. It did not attempt to
represent the entire population of all OFWs around the world hence the use of “selected
OFWs.” The questionnaire also asked for optional demographic information from
respondents who accomplished the form so their background in terms of country of work,
workplace, nature of work, geographic origin from the Philippines, etc. were not included
in this report. Such was the intended nature of the study in order to remain consistent with
just a survey of selected OFWs on their perceptions towards OWWA.

Part 2: Results and discussion

3
Membership in OWWA

The Omnibus Policies enacted on September 19, 2003 by virtue of Board

Resolution No. 38 defines who may qualify as OWWA members, how much is the
contribution that must be paid by the employer and the time frame of membership. Table
1 presents the frequency of responses indicating awareness or lack of it of the basic
issues surrounding OWWA membership.

Data show that OFWs generally perceive that OWWA is a membership

organization (87.15 percent). In fact, 58.51 percent were not aware that they could
voluntarily apply as members right in their jobsites. Respondents are also divided
between those who believe OWWA should be a membership organization and those who
believe OWWA should protect the welfare of all OFWs, regardless of “OWWA
membership” standing. Whereas some OFWs believe, “it is unfair if non-OWWA members
are entitled to the benefits applicable to the legal OWWA members who paid regularly the
corresponding OWWA membership fee,” others point out, “I think majority of the cases of
Pinoy workers needing help abroad are those of unregistered/undocumented workers.”

Table 1. Proportion of respondents aware of OWWA membership issues

Questions on membership Number who Number who

said “Yes” said “No” (%)
(%)
1.Are you aware that OWWA membership is 339 50
mandatory for all overseas workers whose contracts (87.15) (12.85)
are processed by POEA? (n=389)
1.Are you aware that overseas workers may enroll 161 227
voluntarily with OWWA at job sites overseas? (n=388) (41.49) (58.51)
1.Are you aware that OWWA benefits are only 303 84
available to OFWs who are OWWA members and (78.29) (21.71)
have paid the US$25 membership fee? (n=387)
1.Are you aware that OWWA membership continues 194 189
until the expiration of the contract if processed by (50.65) (49.35)
POEA, or for 2 years if registered through voluntary
on-site registration? (n=383)
1.Are you aware that the employer is supposed to 62 322
shoulder the cost of the OWWA membership fee? (16.15) (83.85)
(n=384)

Table 1 also reveals that OFWs have conflicting perceptions about the OWWA
membership. A majority of 78.29 percent of them thought that OWWA benefits can only
be availed of by those who pay the membership fee making the agency exclusive instead
of a welfare and service unit mandated to take care of all overseas workers in general.
Respondents also showed quite ambivalent perceptions about the duration of their
membership: 50.65 percent thought that membership period lasts till their contract lasts if
processed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and for two
years if processed through voluntary on-site registration. A significant 83.85 percent also
thought that the membership fee was not supposed to be shouldered by their employers.

4
This figure suggested clearly that the OFWs perceived that they themselves had to pay
their own membership fee.

Furthermore, as one OFW asked, “if OWWA services aren't limited to "members
only", why should I become a member in some way?” Some OFWs pointed out the irony
that even members rarely enjoy OWWA benefits. A number of OFWs reject the
“member/non-member” dichotomy because they believe it is the responsibility of the
Philippine Government to ensure that every OFW receives OWWA’s protection.

Benefit package given by OWWA

Because the respondents thought that OWWA was a membership organization, it

was not surprising that they also perceived that the benefit package of the agency is
exclusive for the registered members (78.29 percent). Table 2 presents the percentage
distribution of respondents according to the questions related to OWWA’s benefit
package.

Table 2 Proportion of respondents aware of OWWA’s benefit package

.
Number Number Number who
Questions on benefit package who said who said said “NA*”
“Yes” (%) “No” (%) (%)
1.Do you think that OWWA benefits should be 303 84 -
limited to OWWA members who pay the (78.29) (21.71) -
membership fee? (n=387)
1.Are you aware that OWWA offers life 202 186 -
insurance, disability and burial benefits, (52.06) (47.94) -
training and scholarship programs, repatriation
programs for distressed OFWs and their
families, reintegration programs, loans and
workers assistance and on-site services?
(n=388)
1.Have you used any of these programs? 26 358 -
(n=384) (6.77) (93.23) -
1.If you have availed of any of these services, 16 93 240
was it successful in meeting your welfare (5.13) (26.50 (68.38)
needs? (n=351)
1.Are you aware that OWWA is currently the 192 190 -
lead welfare institution that seeks to serve the (50.26) (49.74) -
interests and welfare of members? (n=382)
1.Are you aware that the OWWA fund is 24 354 -
available for loans to non-OFW businessmen? (6.35) (93.65) -
(n=378)
1.Do you think that the OWWA funds should 36 340 -
be made available to non-OFW loans? (n=378) (10.05) (89.95) -

5
1.Who do you think should shoulder the cost of
OFW welfare services? (n=738)
a.Employer 179 (24.25) - -
b.The OFWs themselves 116 (15.72) - -
c.The Philippine government 256 (34.82) - -
d.The foreign government 83 (11.25) - -
e.All of the above 103 (13.96) - -

*NA: not applicable

Around 48 percent of OFWs reported that they did not know what services and
benefits are offered by OWWA. Of the survey respondents, only 7 percent of OFWs have
successfully accessed an OWWA service or benefit. Of the 93 percent of OFWs who
have not benefited from an OWWA program, a majority reported that they had not
accessed the benefit due to lack of information or a procedural obstacle, rather than from
lack of need. This suggests some room for improvement of OWWA’s program to educate
OFWs on the services they offer the OFWs.

Figures further show that there is a repeated ambivalence on OWWA’s mandate.

Almost half of respondents did and did not know that said agency is the lead institution
mandated to protect the welfare of OFWs. Considering that OWWA has been functioning
for the last 31 years, it is surprising that half of the respondents in this survey still did not
know much about OWWA.

Respondents were asked to explain their stand on questions 6&7. They explained
emphatically that OWWA does not exist to serve the welfare of OFWs, but rather to serve
as a “milking cow” for other corrupt government agencies. Since there were incidents
reported that OWWA lent cash capitals to private business groups and corporations, they
acquired the impression that some people were using OWWA for their own private
interests.

Qualitative comments from respondents revealed that current procedures to avail

of benefits pose insurmountable obstacles for most OFWs. OFWs cite the OWWA
bureaucracy as one of the main problems preventing the agency from fulfilling its
mandate to protect OFW welfare. Of the 93 percent of OFWs who have never utilized an
OWWA benefit, a majority blames the bureaucracy of OWWA, and the procedural
obstacles that prevent them to avail the benefits. According to the most common survey
testimonial, when an OFW applies for assistance, the OWWA administration either tells
the OFW that the benefits are suspended or no longer available, or imposes such a
confusing and demanding bureaucratic process that the OFW gives up in hopelessness.
OWWA’s reputation has spread throughout the OFW community so that some OFWs in
distress do not even take the initial trouble to apply for OWWA’s assistance. As one OFW
reported, “I never get a good feedback from those who already experienced … OWWA.”
This common experience has caused many OFWs to believe that the advertised OWWA
programs exist only on paper to make OWWA look effective and never actually benefit
OFWs. According to survey responses, in order for OWWA to regain OFW trust, the
agency must simplify the procedural requirements necessary to avail of the benefits it is
mandated to give.

Some other qualitative comments reinforcing these observations include:

6
 1.“Frankly i am not fully aware how OWWA works. They should disseminate A to Z of
OWWA...”

2.“It should be improved. The OFW's must be fully informed.”

3.“We should be properly informed of all these. The current OWWA Information
dissemination is not effective.”

4.“They are just making money out of the people by collecting membership fees but
they are not very helpful.”

5.“I did try to get a loan from OWWA, for just a small amount which I urgently need,
but to my dismay.”

6.“When I was a seaman I tried to avail of some training...ayyyy naku ang daming red
tape.......” (I got so dismayed; the red tape was too long)

7.“I tried to inquire to avail one but the staff were so discouraging as they are telling
me that I need to undergo a lot of processes before I avail one. I feel like they don’t
want me to.”

8.“I never enjoy these mentioned benefits, as it’s only in writing; not fully
implemented.”

9.“They (OWWA administrators) are just using this (the agency) as a milking cow.”

10.“One time, I asked my wife to use the medical benefit. That was the time I learned
about how OWWA treated their members. Masasabi mo sa sarili mo na never and never
again you go back to them to ask for assistance.”

Administration of OWWA

Earlier findings point to the OWWA administration as the most important factor that
explains the present perception of OFWs regarding the said agency. As the OFWs have
unclear understanding of OWWA’s mandate, so is their reception of the various leaders
and sectors that make up the administration. Table 3 presents the summary of these
frequency distributions regarding the issue on OWWA leadership.

Table 3 Frequency distribution of OFWs and their perceptions of OWWA administrative matters

Questions on OWWA administration & leadership Number who Number who

said “Yes” said “No” (%)
(%)
1.Are you aware that the OWWA board claims the 29 351
right to terminate or alter OWWA benefits and (7.63) (92.37)
services unilaterally? (n=380)
1.Are you aware that OFWs make up only 17 percent 11 375
of the OWWA Board? (n=386) (2.85) (97.15)
1.Do you think OFWs have enough representation to 84 297
the OWWA Board? (n=381) (22.05) (77.95)
7
1.Are you aware that the OWWA fund is considered a 54 325
“trust fund,” but does not have named “trustors. (14.25) (85.75)
Trustees or beneficiaries? (n=379)
1.Are you aware that OWWA has a “target growth 45 328
rate” and is trying to increase the size of the fund? (12.06) (87.94)
(n=373)

Pursuant to LOI 537, P. D. 1694, P. D. 1809 and R. A. 8042, the composition of

the OWWA Board of Trustees is as follows:
1.Chair: Secretary of Labor and Employment
2.Vice-chair: OWWA Administrator
3.Members:
a.Secretaries of the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Budget and
Management
b.Undersecretary of Labor and Employment
c.POEA Administrator
d.Representative, Management Sector
e.Representative, Labor Sector
f.Representative, Sea-based OFWs
g.Representative, Land-based OFWs

Selection of trustees from the sectors’ groups is by recommendation of the

appropriate agencies and approved by the Office of the President. This selection method
is clearly political and might not serve the best interest of the OFWs. Respondents
clarified through a qualitative comment that “the selection process of Board of Trustees
should be transparent and results made known to the membership.” Figures in Table 3
show that in the first place, 97.15 percent of respondents were not even aware of this
composition. It is therefore not surprising that to more than 77 percent of OFWs, their
representation (both as land- or sea-based), such representation is not enough. They
also expressed that:

1.“OWWA should be run by an ex-OFW, not by a political appointee.”

2.“OWWA administrators should be run by competent, experienced former OFWs or at

least majority of whom are ex-OFWs.”

“Qualified personnel must be at stake instead of coloring it with political

appointees.”

Respondents were also asked the following questions:

1.Who do you think is responsible for managing the trust?
2.Who do you think gives or contributes the money that makes up the OWWA fund?
3.For whose benefit do you think the trust has been created?

There were 75 respondents who answered the three questions and distributions of
their answers showed that 77.3 percent (58 respondents) identified the OFWs as the first
responsible person and manager, the primary contributor to the OWWA fund, and
therefore the rightful beneficiary. The government, representatives from foreign
employers and the OWWA leaders were likewise identified but noted to be only in support
of the primary OFW members.
8
 Many OFWs report fearing that the current Board members do not prioritize OFW
welfare or are not qualified to understand the OFW experience. A number of OFWs called
for a higher ratio of OFW to non-OFW Board members and demand a Board composed of
“persons with known integrity and record.”

The remaining issues asked in Table 3 revealed the very limited knowledge and
low level of awareness of respondents on the administrative decisions recently made by
the Board of Trustees. More than 85 percent of them were not aware of the trust fund
nature of OWWA fund and that the trustees set a target to increase this collection. This
further explains why OWWA requires OFWs to register even to the point of collecting the
membership fees from the OFWs themselves. This is contrary to the very mandate of
OWWA as stipulated in Executive Order No. 195 and Republic Act No. 8042. As regards
the trustees’ use of the funds, qualitative comments given by respondents included:

1.“It should and must serve exclusively the needs of OFWs and management of the
board should have majority participation by OFW. It is our money.”

2.“The OWWA Fund should be … transparent to all members; to inform them where
the fund is being used.”

3.“OWWA should be transparent particularly with regards to its funds.”

4.“The only time we see OWWA is when they want us to pay - how about when we
need them? A lot of reconstruction needs to be done.”

5.“They are just making money out of the people by collecting membership fees but
they are not very helpful.”

6.“One thing I do suggest to OWWA: please manage the OWWA fund because this
money is almost taken from the blood of OFWs and they did not just pick the money
from the road side and go home to the Philippines. They suffered a lot to build that
fund…”

1.“It (OWWA) doesn't work and should be changed immediately. This is a robbery by
the government who call them "heroes".

Furthermore, as more than 85 percent of the respondents are not aware that
OWWA fund is a trust fund, they were also asked if they were in favor of increasing it
as a real investment. There were 105 respondents who answered this item and their
unanimous concerns were:

1.It is okay to increase the fund for as long as OWWA will get it from investments and
not by increasing the US$25 membership fee (DAPAT PALAKIHIN ANG OWWA FUNDS,
PERO DI NA MAGTAAS ANG BABAYARAN NG OFW).
2.No, OWWA is a welfare organization and not a fund institution. Instead of increasing
the fund they should look at investments to increase the fund but not to take it against
the OFW's (meaning, not to increase the fund by increasing the membership fees
collected from OFWs).

9
Communication line with OWWA

The previous discussions also identify another factor identified by the respondents
as the source of misinformation and misunderstanding with regard to OWWA matters:
ineffective communication lines between the OFWs and OWWA. Table 4 presents the
proportion of respondents with their perceptions on the way OWWA should communicate
with its clients. Figures show that OFWs have very simple expectations from OWWA: to
simply inform them and update them of anything through the web. As this communication
line is open 24 hours a day, OFWs can avail of any OWWA welfare service or assistance.

Table 4. Proportion of respondents’ perceptions on OWWA’s communication lines with OFWs

Number Number who

Questions on OWWA’s communication lines with who said said “No” (%)
OFWs “Yes” (%)
1.How would you like to communicate your
suggestions to the OWWA Board? (n=674)
a.Through the OWWA website 300 (44.51)
b.Through your representative to Congress 196 (29.08) -
c.Another way 178 (26.41)
1.Do you think OFWs should have any control over 336 41
OWWA’s decisions to alter or terminate services? (89.12) (10.88)
(n=377)

Conclusion

The preceding results and discussion point to the following conclusions about the
perceptions of OFWs on the role of the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration:

1. After more than 31 years of operations, a significant number of OFWs remain

either unaware or misinformed about the role of OWWA. This proves OWWA’s
failure to adequately inform its clients and maintain an effective communication line
with them. This failure to adequately inform and educate the OFWs also explains
why there is a split of respondents over OWWA membership requirement.

2. The OWWA Board of Trustees made recent decisions that are questionable not
only in terms of violating its original mandate but also the Constitution of the
Republic. The absence of transparency in its decision making, composition and
disbursement of funds raise doubts about OWWA’s real interests. The highly
bureaucratic procedures in filing membership, availing of the benefit package and
obtaining information related to overseas contract work discourage OFWs to
regard OWWA as truly an organization mandated to promote their welfare.

3. Findings in this study also point out to the need for OWWA to initiate and sustain
a mechanism to consult with their target clients-beneficiaries in all aspects of its
operations.

10
CRITICAL ISSUES AND ELEMENTS OF A PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON OWWA 3

1. Affirmation of the primary/principal responsibility of the State (not the workers) to

protect Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs)

Bases:

1.1 1987 Philippine Constitution

Article II, Section 18: “The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall
protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.”

Article XIII, Section 3 (first paragraph): “The State shall afford full protection to labor, local
and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment opportunities for
all.”

1.2 Pertinent laws such as the Labor Code and R. A. 8042, among others

1.3 Pertinent laws which created OWWA (LOI 537, PD 1694, 1809, EO 126, 195, R. A. 8042,
etc.)

2. There is an urgent need to enact a legislative charter for OWWA.

2.1 OWWA has no legislative charter.

2.2 OWWA is not a government owned and controlled corporation but an instrumentality of
Government.

In the case of Manila International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals G. R. 155650,
July 20, 2006 (495 SCRA 591), the Supreme Court held that MIAA is not a government
owned and controlled corporation because it was not organized as a stock or non-stock
corporation. Instead, it is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to
perform efficiently its governmental functions. OWWA is similarly situated and fits the
definition of a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory
Provisions of the Administrative Code defines a government “instrumentality” as follows:
 
“SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. –– x x x x
 
“(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated
within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law,
endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying
operational autonomy, usually through a charter. x x x (Emphasis supplied)”
 
2.3 A legislative charter is necessary for OWWA so that its purposes, composition,
management, and funding be defined by law. The law also sets the standards and the limits of the
delegated authority of the OWWA Board to prevent the delegation of authority from running riot.

3
This was presented separately from the OWWA Survey report during the December 12 public forum on
OWWA: Exploring the Legislative Platform. The forum participants welcomed and supported the idea of an
OWWA legislative proposal and to take into consideration the critical issues and elements presented.
11
3. Affirmation of the OWWA Fund as an Irrevocable and Perpetual Public Trust Fund

3.1 The OWWA Fund can only be used for the purposes for which it was created

3.2 The OWWA Fund, being a trust fund, is not government money, and shall not revert to the
national government and should be exempted from the “one fund doctrine” of the government.

3.3 The OWWA Fund does not remit dividends and earnings to the national government.

3.4 All OWWA investments shall be placed in government securities and bonds only.

4. Contributions to the OWWA Fund must be actually paid by the employers/principal,

or in default of the employer, by the recruitment agency under a joint and solidarity
liability. The employer/principal/agency obligation to shoulder the contribution to the
OWWA Fund shall be integrated into the employment contracts of all OFWs. In no case,
or under no circumstance, should the contribution to the OWWA Fund be shouldered by
the OFW himself/herself. Violation of this provision shall be an administrative and criminal
offense.

4.1 The law says that the employer should pay the contribution to the OWWA Fund. OWWA
and the POEA affirms this obligation of the employer. OWWA and the POEA should obey the
law.

4.2 Rather than observe the law in its breach because of alleged difficulties in implementation,
the government agencies involved should ensure that the law is followed to the letter.

4.3 The employer/principal/recruitment agency shall contribute to the OWWA Fund on a per
contract basis processed by the POEA.

5. On the premise that contributions to the OWWA Fund shall be shouldered by the
employers/principals/recruitment agency, then OWWA services shall not be limited to
“paying members” only.

5.1 All OFWs in distress shall be ensured of repatriation assistance. All OFWs whose
foreign employer, past or current, has contributed at least once to the OWWA Fund (in the last ___
years), shall be entitled to repatriation assistance from OWWA where needed, subject to
reimbursement by the foreign employer/principal/agency concerned, if warranted, as the case may
be.

5.2 The government, through the Assistance To Nationals services of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, shall provide immediate and adequate assistance to all other Filipinos abroad who
are in distress. For this purpose, Congress shall appropriate the amount of at least P150,000,000
every year for the repatriation of Filipinos abroad who are in distress.

5.3 In case of emergency mass repatriations, the OWWA and the DFA, with full support from
the national government, shall undertake mass repatriations/evacuations as may be necessary. The
cost shall be shouldered in accordance with the foregoing classification.

5.4 The repatriation of remains of deceased Filipinos abroad shall follow the foregoing scheme.

5.5 Insurance and health-care benefits shall also be available to all OFWs whose foreign
employer, past or current, has contributed at least once to the OWWA Fund (in the last ___ years).

12
5.6 OWWA shall concentrate the use of its funds on its core services. Non-core services shall
be transferred to other agencies of government.

6. The composition of the OWWA Board shall be increased to 14 from the current 12
by adding an additional representative each of land-based and sea-based OFWs.

6.1 All records of OWWA, including minutes of meetings of the Board shall be accessible to
the public.

6.2 While members of the Board are allowed to send representatives to Board meetings as
observers, proxy voting should not be allowed. Instead, the Board shall ensure teleconferencing
facilities in order to muster quorum in Board meetings.

13