OFW FORUM
Jun Concepcion
Overseas Filipino workers are objecting to different fees and charges imposed by government, lest they get hassled on their way back to their work overseas.
Unless they pay these fees to several government agencies, they won’t be given an Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC) by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Without an OEC, an OFW is barred from flying out of Manila and getting back to work overseas. Okay, but are all the fees and charges justified?
Announcements have already been made about those fees and charges and OFWs simply have no choice but to pay them.
Understandably, the coercive nature of the mandatory payment of higher SSS and PhilHealth membership dues, Pag-IBIG contribution, as well as “additional” insurance cover, has riled many OFWs.
A case of “taxation without representation” reminiscent of the anti-British political slogan about 1761 as
American colonists resented getting taxed by the British parliament? It appears so.
While SSS and PhilHealth membership dues and other fees and charges are euphemistically labeled as “contributions”, they effectively become “mandatory taxes” since departing OFWs have no choice but to pay them. They also don’t have any say in how they are crafted.
Are these mandatory fees and charges fair and justified?
Not so, according to OFWs in Hong Kong and the Middle East, as well as the Alliance of Overseas Filipinos for Change (AOFC), an NGO in Hong Kong.
Maritess Palma, who heads the Social Justice for Migrant Workers in Hong Kong, said that while the government aggressively demands mandatory fees and other charges, it is often slow and unresponsive to distressed OFWs’ plea for assistance. She is calling on OFWs in Hong Kong and elsewhere to object and oppose mandatory government fees and charges.
Ricel Mae Que, an OFW in Qatar, said the government should stop using coercion to make OFWs pay mandatory fees and charges. Despite paying membership dues to OWWA for 16 years, she said she has not received any benefit from the agency.
Odick Oding Barro, a domestic helper in Hong Kong, said contributions to different government programs should be made voluntarily, not in a mandatory manner.
Malou Agustin Bernardo, an OFW in Kuwait, said the mandatory fees are more of a scourge than a helpful aid to OFWs.
“If all paid in one go while trying to secure an OEC, a departing OFW has to set aside a big chunk of money which is often difficult to do,” she said, adding: “Why are these fees mandatory anyway, why not give OFWs a choice?”
Taking a stronger stance, the AOFC said agencies which seek mandatory fees and other charges should first fully explain and justify them.
Cases in point are the higher rates of membership contribution to the SSS and PhilHealth.
“Why can’t these two agencies offer improved benefits to make the higher rate of contribution more enticing and acceptable to OFW members? For instance, SSS can perhaps come up with an online emergency all-purpose lending scheme for needy members, with the loan proceeds released to an OFW family member in the Philippines capped, perhaps, at 30 to 40 percent of contributions made,” AOFC said.
In PhilHealth’s case, its services are often unavailable to OFWs most of whom get medical care in their place of work overseas. “If many OFWs can’t use PhilHealth benefits at a time of most need, why should they be made to pay higher contributions? For PhilHealth benefits to become more valued, OFW members should perhaps be given an option to designate one immediate family member, one of the OFW’s children or either parent, as PhilHealth beneficiary while membership remains in force.
There’s no reason why SSS and PhilHealth can’t improve their services to members. All it really takes is genuine commitment to better quality service,” AOFC added.
The latest imposition on OFWs as of March this year, which raises more questions than answers, is the expanded compulsory insurance and enhanced insurance coverage, aimed at “improving protection and promotion of welfare of OFWs during the global Covid-19 global health emergency crisis.” Except for this general statement in a POEA circular, little else is known about this new OFW imposition.
In the meantime, the decades-old mandatory accident insurance scheme for OFWs remains seriously flawed. For an insured OFW to avail of accident cover benefits, he or she has to lose both arms, legs or eyesight at the same time. Why this ludicrous provision? This writer was flabbergasted while once assisting a distressed OFW. It’s anybody’s guess if the latest Covid-related insurance cover will be useful or not.
In the end, government charges need to be paid whether or not OFWs get the benefit of prior consultation and proper explanation. Taxation without representation? Sadly, OFWs have to embrace this harsh reality.
Contact this writer at [email protected]