FOR MANY Filipino families, the decision to work abroad conjures dreams of the good life. Overseas employment offers for many a chance at better work and higher pay, but often forgotten in the romantic vision of work abroad is the cost of distance—home and family.
As Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) remain a significant component in the country’s economic model, the formalization of an overseas employment program through the 1974 Labor Code of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos still retains its relevance today. Now, the dawn of a new Marcos presidency raises questions about the continuity of the labor export policy—and the government’s larger steps towards ensuring an equitable and sustainable job market at home.
Parched pastures
Having been born into a family of Overseas Filipino Workers, Andrea Joyce Peñaflor (2 BS BIO) carries conflicting sentiments toward labor migration. Her father has been working as an electrical engineer in Kuwait for 22 years, resulting in a gaping disconnect between him and his daughter’s life.
No stranger to generational hardship himself, Peñaflor’s father endured financial constraints as a college student, exacerbated by the scarcity of economic opportunities in his hometown Isabela City, Basilan. This forced him to take on multiple side hustles and assume the responsibility of looking after his younger siblings. After passing the licensure examination, Peñaflor’s father immediately migrated to Kuwait in 2000, partly compelled by the low compensation and undesirable working conditions that he saw in the Philippines.
Such promise of decent remittances, job security, and related work benefits entice Filipino laborers like Peñaflor’s father to work abroad and settle anywhere but in the Philippines. Now, having been in Kuwait for more than a decade, Peñaflor’s father says he has been well-taken care of—not only by his agency but also by the close-knit Filipino community surrounding him. Thus, he was compelled to stay in the comfort of his newfound home despite the numerous job offers in the Philippines.
If poverty were not in the picture, Andrea Joyce Peñaflor would have wanted her father to stay instead of sacrificing his relationship with his children. “Maybe my father did not know me as much as I wanted him to, and it’s not because he genuinely wanted to be disconnected from us…. [Going abroad] was brought about [by] the circumstances,” Peñaflor expresses.
Like many others, she reconciled growing up without a father with the hope that this sacrifice would pave the way for a future better than the past.
A battle beyond borders
Despite widespread misconceptions of peace and unparalleled prosperity, the Martial Law years were plagued by declining wages, skyrocketing inflation, and mounting foreign debt. According to Ateneo Center for Economic Research and Development Director Ser Percival Peña-Reyes, PhD, the economic mismanagement led by Marcos Sr. and his team of technocrats disrupted much of Filipinos’ daily lives with fluctuating prices, loss of job security, and stagnant incomes—ultimately fomenting opposition.
“If the firewall [between politics and economics] is broken, meaning to say, you do [make] politically bad decisions that are already spilling over to people’s day-to-day living, [then] that becomes the people’s concern,” he explains in a mix of English and Filipino.
As the elder Marcos’ term wore on, dismal working conditions—leading to food insecurity and minimal earnings—began to fracture that barrier. In 1972, urban youths aged 20 to 24 years old and adults aged 25 to 44 years old occupied 50% and 30% of the unemployed, respectively. As a result, dissatisfaction emerging from these sectors ignited protests against the regime.
Amid growing social inequality, the implementation of the 1974 Labor Code and the broad institutionalization of Filipino migrant worker outflow served as a political instruments designed to maintain control and momentarily appease dissidents. “It was a convenient way, perhaps, to go about it because soaring domestic prices and stagnant incomes were a recipe for wide social unrest,” Peña-Reyes states.
While the labor export policy addressed the United States Dollar shortfall and the lack of career opportunities in the country, it also served to divert attention away from the administration and send critics abroad.
Across the seas and on foreign lands, however, the exchange of ideas that transpired between OFWs and the norms of their host countries may have influenced the former’s views on governance. For instance, some Filipino immigrants who were among the most involved in the anti-Martial Law movement resided in the West Coast of the United States, an area historically known for political activism.
“The same day Marcos enacted Proclamation No. 1081, a gathering of Filipino progressives took place in San Francisco. Mostly Philippine- and some US-born Filipino Americans created the National Coalition for the Restoration of Civil Liberties in the Philippines, the first organized US-based opposition to the Marcos dictatorship,” San Francisco-based Yuchengco Philippine Studies Program Director James Zarsadia says.
Nothing “new”
Now a college sophomore, Peñaflor shares that she has considered going abroad in the future.
She adds a caveat, “Now that I take a look at the situation of the Philippines, I feel very compelled to go back [to the Philippines if ever I go abroad]… I think it would be best to share the opportunities with people by just staying in the country and partaking in initiatives that make more opportunities available to people.”
Peñaflor emphasizes the need for government initiatives to create robust systems that sustainably promote national growth. In particular, she believes that worker safety and humane treatment are key hallmarks towards true development. Unfortunately, current progressive efforts, including the introduction of a hazard pay for healthcare professionals, remain significantly superficial and ineffective improvements in the system. “Most often than not, it does not really trickle down to the needs of these people that go outside of the country,” Peñaflor states.
She adds that the government and other concerned institutions have the responsibility to invest in education and programs that prevent the Filipino laborers—tormented by frustrations and broken promises—from resenting their own country. More than providing safe spaces for the labor force, Peñaflor shares that ensuring the welfare of laborers entails cultivating the optimum selves they aspire to become.
A new Marcos may be at the helm, yet plans to implement labor migration policies resembling those of his father loom in the horizon. Thus, generations of Filipino workers must contend with a labor system that still lags in development until fundamental changes are made.
