OVER ONE million Filipino workers in West Asia risk job loss and possible injury, following the United States–Israel joint attacks on Iran.

Despite the immediate danger and volatile environment this has resulted in, many overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) make the difficult choice to remain abroad, putting their families’ financial needs ahead of their own safety.

In the crossfire 

Regional tensions in West Asia translate into immediate threats for OFWs. As of April, two Filipinas have died in Israel during recent airstrikes: caregiver Mary Ann Velazquez de Vera and Lucille Jean Gersovich.

Beyond these physical dangers, economic uncertainties worsen the plight of OFWs in the area, as salary cuts and job losses mount due to business operation disruptions. Yet, the reluctance to return home from war zones is a recurring pattern for Filipino migrants who would rather work to maintain their stream of income.

Explaining this pattern, Center for Migrant Advocacy Executive Director Ellene Sana said that a lack of decent-paying jobs in the Philippines compels workers to endure geopolitical tensions. “Despite the risk [and] the consequence of being away from your family for [an] indefinite period of time, they will [still] make the hard decision of leaving [the country],” she said.

In Libya, for example, Filipino nurses reported being threatened at gunpoint by patients, coerced into working by armed rebels even while off-duty, and subjected to robbery and assault both inside and outside hospital premises. Despite such experiences, OFWs ultimately chose to leave only after the violence affected their specific workplaces, remittance centers shut down, and basic utilities were cut off.

Additionally, physical danger is not experienced equally across all sectors. Sana emphasized that domestic workers face disproportionate vulnerability rooted in mobility restrictions, passport confiscation, and near-total legal dependency on their employers compared to skilled professionals who have more freedom to mobilize and seek aid.

This is particularly pronounced in countries operating under the kafala system, a sponsorship-based labor arrangement prevalent across West Asia that legally binds a migrant worker’s residency and employment status to a single employer. Under kafala, workers cannot change jobs, leave the country, or seek outside assistance without their sponsor’s explicit consent. Notably, an estimated 90% of domestic workers in Lebanon alone have their passports confiscated upon arrival, further eliminating any independent means of escape.

This dynamic leaves migrants structurally immobilized in the crossfire by being denied unimpeded access to evacuation and rescue efforts.

Conflicted aid

With OFWs experiencing heightened vulnerability, the Marcos administration has assured the public that their safety is among the country’s top priorities. Since April, up to 7,674 workers have returned to the country with the government’s assistance. 

To maximize support from the national government, the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) has also funded 7,051 of these repatriations through assistive services, consisting of financial assistance amounting to USD 200, including transportation, temporary shelter, and reintegration support.

Starting early April, Php 1.2 billion has been utilized to assist OFWs in cash and transportation across several West Asia countries. Still, over 1 million Filipinos remain across the Gulf States—all faced with the possibility of being forced back home.

Hoping for effective aid despite the possibility of larger-scale operations,  the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration has sought a Php 12-billion budget increase to cover more migrant workers’ post-repatriation assistance and special financial relief. 

While the agency estimates that the approval of this request would bring home around 80,000 more workers, Sana stresses the inability of these measures to cater to much larger populations, raising the question of long-term support and effectiveness across economic changes.

“We have to give [the government] credit for our protection measures, but there is always the issue of the scale of operations. Most of the time, we know what to do, but there are a lot of people we have to care for,” she explained. 

Ultimately, these emergency grants are finite and are facing an expanding landscape of global instability. As the government prioritizes emergency exit measures rather than a permanent, sustainable framework for safety, millions of OFWs remain vulnerable until the next inevitable conflict.

Safety or sustenance?

Another aspect of the West Asia conflict that renders Filipino nationals economically unsafe is the oil crisis. Projected to slow down the gross domestic product (GDP) growth, the crisis has since prompted calls for the government to strengthen human capital through social safety nets during calamities.

With a similar vision, the DMW partnered with the United Nations to reassess the country’s migration processes and protection measures. A point of discussion was the nationwide adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), an intergovernmental agreement that argues for co-designed reintegration policies among migrants, local government units, and the private sector.

However, ensuring that these safeguards are adequate for future crises requires changing how policy is executed on the ground. A recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concluded that effective reintegration requires consultation with migrants themselves, civil society organisations, community leaders, and caseworkers.

“Strengthening the local industry through livelihood assistance is better than the temporary relief of one-time cash grants, as most OFWs also prefer to open their own businesses upon being repatriated,” Sana pointed out.

Short-term aid cannot replace the structural stability that could otherwise keep Filipinos from risking their lives in volatile labor markets. To address the mass departure of these workers, sustainable domestic policy must be rooted in the migrants who have been persuaded by economic circumstances to seek greener pastures abroad and, as a consequence, have become caught in between conflict.