User:Dissensus/sandbox


 * Group 1 - Sen. Grace Poe

Platform and Advocacies
Sen. Grace Poe's platform currently builds on her father Fernando Poe Jr.'s social covenant, focusing on three major areas: Her labor legislative agenda also includes more opportunities, skill development and growth for Filipino workers, employment security for the disabled and handicapped, and protection of workers in the informal sector.

Poe also stresses the importance of female participation in government, having already filed a number of legislations for the benefit of women and children; she has also called for an investigation on the proliferation of cybersex dens that prey on children and women, and an inquiry on the condition of women detainees and prisoners.

"Effective leadership can be gleaned not just from the progress of a few but the advancement of the majority, especially of those who find themselves in the fringes," Poe said during a speech delivered at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) attended mostly by female leaders and entrepreneurs.

"It is important for women to have genuine meaningful participation in public affairs. Women leaders have an invaluable take on issues of public interest."

Freedom of Information Bill
Senate Bill No. 1733 or the People's FOI was passed with 22 affirmative votes from all senators present on its third and final reading last March 10, 2014, 21 years after it was first filed in congress. FOI implements a policy of full public disclosure of information on matters of public concern. Senator Grace Poe, the bill's sponsor and chair of the Senate Committee on People's Public Information and Mass Media stated that the measure aims to eliminate corruption in the bureaucracy by opening government transactions to the public and holding government officials accountable for their actions. "The FOI will not only prevent graft and corruption but more importantly, our citizens will learn to get involved and participate in government matters," Poe said during her sponsorship speech.

Under the measure, Poe said, Filipino citizens will have the right to request and be granted access to records or information that is under the control of government unless the information requested would jeopardize national security, foreign relations, law enforcement operations, trade and economic secrets, individual's right to privacy, privileged information as considered in judicial proceedings or information made in executive sessions of Congress and those that are covered by presidential privilege.These exemptions however, she said, shall not be used to cover up a crime, wrongdoing, graft or corruption, or other illegal activities.

On March 4, 2015, the bill passed the Committee on Appropriations; as of this date, it is awaiting 2nd reading. The Committee of Public Information of the House of Representatives has formed a technical working group (TWG) to expedite the passage of the house version.

The President conceded that although he would not be marking the bill as urgent, he was confident it would become law by the time he steps down in 2016. “I regret I cannot certify it as urgent because the Constitution requires an emergency,” said the President, “but the assurance I think should be given, at this point in time, that it will be passed before the end of my term.”

Sustansya sa Batang Pilipino Act of 2013
Senator Grace Poe filed her first bill on July 1, 2013, which focuses on addressing the prevailing problem of hunger and malnutrition in the Philippines.

The Senate Bill No. 79, also known as the “Sustansya Para sa Batang Pilipino Act,” is an act instituting a comprehensive free lunch feeding program for all public elementary schools, including both kindergarten and high schools, in the Philippines. The program aims to provide “free nutritious meals” to public school students from kindergarten to grade six, five days a week, over a period of 120 days or about 6 months for five years.

A total of P1.3 billion has been allocated for the feeding program to be implemented for the first time for school year 2015-2016 which is expected to benefit an estimated of six million malnourished children in the country.

Philippine Film and Television Tourism Act of 2014
Sen. Grace Poe urged the passage of the Film Tourism bill, an act establishing a framework for film and television tourism in the philippines, marketing the industry globally and providing employment for the sector and for other purposes. In sponsoring Senate Bill 2272, or the Film and Television Tourism Act of 2014, Poe said, "Films serve as a virtual brochure of a country. Tourists become inspired to experience the scene locations captured on films. From there, marketing opportunities are generated when the film is premiered, and, at the same time, other business opportunities also open through film tourism."

Poe, who also chairs the Senate committee on public information and mass media, proposed the creation of the Philippine Film and Television Tourism Authority (PFTTA), a one-stop-shop system for foreign film or television entities, to encourage producers to choose the country as their shooting destination and address industry concerns on ease of doing business. "Film tourism has been successful in boosting the tourism industry of other countries. We can also do it here if done properly. Our country is blessed with pristine white beaches and breathtaking landscapes and we have locations similar or even better than locations featured in A-list movies," Poe said. "We should take advantage of our beautiful scenery and use it as a tool for national development."

Fresh Graduates Pre-employment Assistance Act of 2013
In order to provide assistance to fresh graduates in their first year of transition to becoming productive members of the society, Senator Grace Poe filed a bill that will make it easier for fresh graduates to apply for jobs and allow them to obtain income for the first time.

The Senate Bill No. 1216, or the "Fresh Graduates Pre-employment Assistance Act”, seeks to waiver the collection of pre-employment fees and other charges for fresh graduates seeking jobs. Under this bill, fees including the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance, the Social Security System (SSS) Number, the Tax Identification Number (TIN), the certification from Local Government Units (LGU), and several other documents, will become free for fresh graduates under the condition that they apply within one year after graduating.

In order to avail the waiver, the graduate should secure related school documents to serve as proof of graduation upon applying for a job. These documents should include the following: a copy of the ones diploma, and a certification or document from the academic or vocational institution one graduated from which certifies that one has truly completed the course. The documents should clearly state the name of the academic or vocational institution, the course completed or degree earned, the date of graduation or completion of the course, and should be signed by an authorized representative of the particular institution.

“[This] is a simple measure that intends not only to provide relief but also to show the State's commitment to promote the interest of the youth," Poe said.

The Free Mobile Disaster Alerts Act
Written on February 19, 2014, Poe proposed a bill to address possible government shortcomings during Typhoon Yolanda, considered by the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration as one of the four most powerful typhoons recorded in the world. Although both local and national governments of said-to-be affected areas sent out several reminders and warnings to their residents, many of the victims still found there to be a lack of pre-disaster alerts.

Poe proposes for “telecommunications service providers to send free mobile emergency alerts in the event of natural and man-made disasters and calamities.” Evidence supporting the practicality of Poe’s proposal is the daily recorded large volume of SMS traffic in the Philippines, as well as the high ranking of the country in the world for most number of mobile phone users, with 107 million as of October 2013. She mentions that this is also practiced in the United States, Australia, and the Netherlands.

As of March 10, 2014, the bill was consolidated in the committee report.

2016 Elections
She is widely speculated to be a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate in the 2016 general elections (and thus seen as the closest competitor to Vice President Jejomar_Binay's own presidential aspirations)    with possible running mates such as Rep. Leni_Robredo and Senator Miriam_Defensor-Santiago.

Poe placed first on a presidential preference poll issued by Pulse_Asia on June 2015 with a rating of 30% rating, outranking previous front runner Vice President Jejomar_Binay, who had a 22% rating. She also placed first in the vice-presidential poll, with a 41% preference nationwide.

In a survey issued by Social Weather Stations (SWS) on June 2015, Poe also placed first, with a 42% preference. She also placed first in SWS' vice-presidential poll, with a 41% rating.

Issue of Philippine Residence
On June 2015, United Nations Alliance (UNA) interim president and Navotas City Representative Toby_Tiangco claimed that Poe lacks the 10-year residency requirement for a presidential candidate. Poe had previously been working in the United States after finishing her graduate studies there, and only returned to the Philippines after her father’s death in 2004. She then revoked her US citizenship to be assume the role of chairperson of the MTRCB in 2010.

The controversy arose due to Poe’s certificate of candidacy (COC) for senator in 2012 for the 2013 Philippine Senate Elections, in which she had stated that she had been a resident of the Philippines for six years and six months. It was argued that it might have been a mistake, but Atty. Raymond Fortun argued that she had to prove it otherwise. Tiangco stated that even during the time of the 2016 Presidential Elections, Poe would still be six months short of the residency requirement.

Poe still has not confirmed her candidacy as either presidential or vice-presidential candidate for the May 2016 elections. = Group 2 - Child Labor in the Philippines =

Introduction
In the Philippines, children are defined to be "“Persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those who over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.”"In general, Child labor is the participation of children in a wild variety of work situations, on a more or less regular basis, to earn a livelihood for themselves or for others. It is different from “Child Work” in a way that Child labor only refers to socially useful economic activities, which result in the productions of goods or performance of services.

This excludes mendicancy because such is not a socially useful means of livelihood and does not entail the production of goods or services.

International views on Child Labor
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), Child Labor is defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development. Whether or not particular forms of “work” can be called “child labour” depends on the child’s age, the type and hours of work performed, the conditions under which it is performed and the objectives pursued by individual countries. The answer varies from country to country, as well as among sectors within countries.

Labor that jeopardizes the physical, mental or moral health of a child, either because of its nature or because of the conditions in which it is carried out, is known as “hazardous work”.

Local perceptions on Child Labor
In the cultural context of the Philippines, it is common to see children involved in adult work in practically all industry sectors, including unpaid family labor, domestic work and homework.

Several opinions from those studies came to the conclusion that not all child work was child labor (or that not all child labor was hazardous). Others felt that child labor by definition was exploitative and detrimental to the child worker. Some studies pointed out the macro role of capitalism, and neocolonialism in causing the poverty from which child labor emerged, and stressed that the economic system and government policies and laws (e.g. export orientation) were important conditions in determining the incidence and prevalence of child labor. Thus, some underscored the need for having a framework of and more sensitivity to gender and age seasonality, locality, environment, and specific culture in research and action.

The Philippine Department of Labor and Employment defines "Child labor" as any work or economic activity performed by a child that subjects him/her to any form of exploitation or is harmful to his/her health and safety or physical, mental or psychosocial development.

Causes and effects
There are different reasons in why children are pushed to work below the legal age of 18 listed below are listed some of the main problems.

Poverty
According to a 2009 survey released on 2011 by the Philippine Statistics Authority or the NSCB on 2011, 26.5% of the Filipino population is poor that equates to 23.1 million people, meaning they live below the poverty threshold. The poverty threshold refers to the minimum income a family or individual must earn in order to be considered “not poor”. An individual is considered poor if he/she is below the annual per capita poverty threshold of P16, 871 annually. Having said that, a more recent data cites that poverty incidence, number of households having an income below the poverty threshold, is prevalent among Filipino families. Poverty incidence percentage declined from 21% in 2006 to 20.5% in 2009 and to 19.7% on 2012, however due to growing population the number of families rose from 3.8 million to 4.03 million and to 4.2 million respectively. Furthermore, a family of five would need an average of P7, 890 to cover their family’s basic food and non-food needs. 

Educational Status
In as study done by Anna Leah Colina for Ecumenical Institure for Labor Education and Research (EILER),
 * "The study,which involved 3,859 households, found that children from poor families "are being forced by necessity to augment the family's coffers by working". Leaving school and working is a decision forced upon children by the reality they face each day, the study added.It further revealed that 96 percent of the households surveyed are living below the poverty threshold of their regions. At least 78 percent of respondents said they do not own or have access to land. Instead, most rely on other means to earn a living such as working in mines and plantations.Colina said a lack of access to education is also a "one push factor" to child labor. She said 60 percent of child laborers did not reach the sixth grade, while 44 percent reached Grade 6 before they left school to work.″.

It showed that most children are either forced to go to work on in an early age due to lack of money or would work completely as their jobs are a steady flow of cash which help their families.

Population
From the 90's to 00's to 10's the Philippines population have steadily increased from 60,703,810 to 76,506,928 and to 92,337,852 respectively that's a growth rate of 2.12 percent.. And by 2045, it is projected to be at 142 million Filipinos according to (Sgd) LISA GRACE S. BERSALES, Ph. D. A 142 Million Philippine Population by 2045?.

Out of school youths
Based on the result of the 2013 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass media survey, done by the National Statistic Office 10.6 percent ages 6-24 of the country’s population is out of school. One of the top reasons is poverty could be traced back as a big percentage on why youth could not attend school as it compromise 19.2 percent as they do not have enough money to send their kids to school. Another alarming sign is lack of interest constitute to 19.1 or third of the top ten reasons why youth do not go to school. Lastly, 5.5 percent of both male and female youths are out of school because they are employed or looking for work. This factors affect as the kids try to help their families earn more income in which they neglect their academics. 

Health effects and various forms of abuse
In an article Joe Torres wrote he cited that working children are afraid to complain in fear of losing their jobs. He also mentioned a thin kid suffering from chest pains and deformed nails due to heavy work and being unable to go to the doctor because they simply could not afford to. He mentions the work done by Anna Leah Colina for a non-government Ecumenical Institue for Labor Education and Research (EILER).
 * ″Poverty and lack of family income are the main reasons why children leave school and work," said Anna Leah Colina, executive director of the non-government Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research. With funding from the European Union, EILER conducted a six-month study on child labor in mines and plantations in the southern Philippines from April to October 2014. Results of the study were released on Wednesday in Manila. “Colina said that two out of 10 households surveyed in six communities have incidents of child labor — primarily due to low family income, lack of access to land and inaccessible schools. 

Colina also found out that children were forced to work on 16-hour shifts. She then cited a case of a child named Julius (not his real name) to show the extreme and hazardrous conditions on which this kid is working with. “The 15-year-old boy is one of many children in the village of Diwata in Compostela Valley province who work alongside adults in the tunnels of a gold mine. From early morning until sundown, Julius is inside the tunnel with a sledgehammer, a shovel and a pickaxe with only a plastic helmet, a pair of boots and gloves for protection.”

ILO-NSO 2011 Study
The Philippine National Statistics Office (NSO) conducted a survey with the support of the ILO and the United States Department of Labor to collect data on the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of working children in the Philippines. It uses definitions taken from Republic Act 9231 (Special Protection of Children against Abuse Act) enacted in 2003 and international statistical standards adopted in 2008. These are some of the definitions as taken from the results
 * Working Children – Children 5 to 17 who worked for even one hour during the past month.
 * Child Labor – Working children who are reported to have worked in hazardous industries and occupations and worked for long hours and/or at night (in industries and occupations not designated as hazardous).
 * Hazardous Child Labor - Working children who do work in hazardous industries and occupations

==== Types of Hazards (under 2011 survey) ====
 * 1) Chemical  - Work involves exposure to:  Dust (e.g. silica, dust, standing dust)  Liquid (e.g. oil, gasoline, mercury)  Mist, fumes, or vapors (e.g. paint, insecticides or pesticide spraying)  Gas (e.g. oxygen, ammonia)  Others
 * 2) Physical - Work involves exposure to:  Noise  Temperature or humidity  Pressure  Inadequate illumination or lighting  Slip, trip, or fall hazards  Insufficient exit for prompt escape  Congested lay-out  Radiation, ultraviolet, or microwave  Others
 * 3) Biological - Work involves exposure to:  Viral  Bacterial  Fungal  Parasitic (e.g. drinking water affected with amoeba)  Others

Permissible Work (non-hazardous)
"Child work" is work allowed, or permitted, to be performed by a child under certain conditions. A child below 15 years old can be permitted to work if he/she is under supervision by family senior/ parents provided that the child works directly under the sole responsibility of his/her parents or legal guardian and where only members of his/her family are employed; the child’s employment does not endangers his/her life, safety, health, and morals, or impairs his/her normal development; the parent or legal guardian shall provide the said child with the prescribed primary and/or secondary education; the employer first secures a work permit for the child from the DOLE.

Children aged 15 to below 18 years of age are permitted to work in any economic activity not considered child labor, but not more than eight (8) hours a day and in no case beyond forty (40) hours a week. They shall not be allowed to work between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. of the following day, and employer should provide the child with access to at least elementary and secondary education.

Historical Evolution of Child Labor Laws in the Philippines
The concern for the welfare of Children being employed to work started in the Philippines as early as 1923. The American colonial government of that time enacted the very first set of rules and regulations in the country regarding Child-labor through Act No. 3071, also known as “An Act to Regulate the Employment of Women and Children in Shops,Factories, Industrial, Agricultural and Mercantile Establishments, and Other Place of Labor in the Philippine Islands, to Provide Penalties for Violations Hereof and for Other Purposes.”  The enforcement of this law was eventually overseen by the Woman and Child Labor Section of the Inspection Division of the then Bureau of Labor in 1925. When the Philippines declared independence from American rule in 1946, all existing laws enacted under the former regime were replaced by Republic Acts. As such, Act No. 3071 was renamed R.A. 695 thereafter and the implementation was entrusted to the Women and Minors Division of the former Bureau of Labor Standards, in 1957.

In 1932, the Philippines enacted into law to codify its penal laws, they came to be known as the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The RPC contains several provisions barring certain types of child work, such as “Exploitation of Child Labor” (Article 273) which prohibits an employer from retaining a child worker in service against his or her will under the pretext of reimbursing a debt incurred by the child’s ascendants. The PRC also includes a clause regarding the “Exploitation of Minors” (Article 278). This provision prohibits the employment of a minor less than sixteen (16) years of age in what the code describes as “dangerous exhibits”. Other provisions of the RPC relating to slavery, prostitution, corruption, illegal detention, and kidnapping of minors are all applicable to child workers. The Revised Penal Code remains in effect to this day in the Philippines.

Two years after Philippine independence from American control, the Republic became a member state of the International Labor Organization in June 15, 1948. Since then, the Philippines have ratified a number of international conventions adopted by ILO, relating to child labor. The country first ratified in 1953, ILO Convention No. 90, which prohibits the employment of children in industry during night time and in 1960, the government ratified ILO Convention No. 59, which fixes the minimum age of employment for industry at 15 years. The convention, however, allows younger workers to be employed in undertakings which only members of the employer’s family are employed, but only if the work in question is not a danger to the life, health, or morals of the children. ILO Convention No. 77, which requires the medical examination and subsequent re-examination of children as a prerequisite for their employment, was also put into effect in 1960. The ILO convention no. 138 or the Minimum Age Convention of 1973 was not ratified in the Philippines until 1998.

During the Martial Law, a handful of Presidential Decrees (P.D.’s) were enforced concerning child labor laws in the Philippines. One of which is P.D. no. 148 which amended R.A. 679, the Woman and Child Labor Law. The new decree simplified the complex provisions of R.A. 679 regarding confusing age limits imposed by this law under different types of undertakings allowing "any person between 14 and 18 years of age to be employed in any non-hazardous undertaking." It is important to note that P.D. no 148 was in direct disagreement with ILO Convention No. 59, of which the Philippines was a signatory state. The new law didn’t last that long since only a year after, P.D. no 148 was amended by the passage of P.D. no 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code. The new law raised the minimum age of employment from 14 to 15 years old, and has maintained the previous minimum age for hazardous undertakings at 18 years old. The Labor Code failed, however, to include the terms and conditions of employment of children previously provided by R.A. 679, as amended by P.D. no. 148 creating a huge gap in the new law.This was eventually addressed through P.D. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code, a codification of different provisions for the well-being of all children.

Child Labor Laws in the Philippines
After the fall of the Marcos regime in 1986, increasing demands for reforms in government policies, legislation and programs affecting children made the government respond by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)  on July 26, 1990. The CRC entered into force as an international agreement on September 2, 1990. The convention directs the ratifying countries to “recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.”

To comply with the mandate of the U.N CRC, the government enacted R.A. 7610, “An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and for Other Purposes” on June 17, 1992. Initially, the act was lauded for its innovation in promoting child welfare, especially those found in extremely difficult situations. However, the act was also severely criticized because of how its provisions severely changed existing policies regarding Child labor laws. Article VIII, Section 12, of R.A. 7610 legalized the employment of all children below 15 years of age, but only if the employer is able to secure a working permit from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

Public opinion and international organizations like the ILO and the UNICEF, along with the local Department of Justice pushed to amend R.A. 7610, Article VII, Section 12, as it was in flagrant violation of ILO convention no. 59. A new law called R.A. 7658 or “An Act Prohibiting the Employment of Children below 15 Years of Age in Public and Private Undertakings” was passed in October of 1993 for this purpose. R.A. 7658 allows only two exceptions to the prohibition on employment below the minimum age, first for the concerned child to “work directly under the sole responsibility of the child's parents or legal guardian and where only members of the employer's family are employed” and second, “where a child's employment in public entertainment or information through cinema, theater, radio or television is essential”. Additionally, the new law requires the employers to first secure for the child a work permit from the DOLE before the child can begin to work.

In 2003, the Philippines passed a new law known as R.A. 9231 or the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”. This law specifically limits the employment of children below 15 years old, with the same exceptions as R.A. 7658, with additional provisions regarding restrictions on the number of hours children are allowed to work, provisions on expanding working children’s access to education, social, medical, and legal assistance.

Other Applicable Laws
section to be filled later

Philippine Program Against Child Labor
The Philippine Program Against Child Labor (PPACL)  is the product of the National Program Against Child Labor (NPACL) framework. Led by the Department of Labor and Employment, the latter framework was established for the period 2001-2004 to combat child labor. The program partners used it as a way to unify the goals, missions, visions, and other points needed. When the period ended, the National Child Labor Committee added breadth to the framework by identifying new objectives that would help sustain the environment NPACL fostered and continue preventing the progressing situation of child labor in the Philippines.

In order to protect children and their rights, they drafted seven objectives to influence action:
 * Create a database system that upholds relevant information on the current events and news on child labor. This database system should be remained updated, inviting stakeholders and program partners to continually add significant studies and other resources.
 * Ensure the role of the PPACL in all of the different partnerships and organizations geared to fight against child labor. This will help create a more responsive National Child Labor Committee.
 * Engage the committee by creating awareness of the prevalent child labor issue through encouraging them to participate in the advocacies and other programs established for them.
 * Encourage social workers and other entitled workers to participate in the programs to add more quality and authenticity.
 * Provide opportunities for children in order to avoid the continuance of child labor while protecting their rights as children.
 * Conventionalize the initiatives against child labor to ensure success and better implementation of laws and policies.
 * Establish programs within laws and policies attributed and associated to child labor in order to proceed to a more national level, wherein all cities and provinces will be able to access the programs and initiatives.

Child Labor Prevention and Elimination Program
The Department of Labor established a program called Child Labor Prevention and Elimination Program. To be consistent with the PPACL framework, the objectives of the programs was founded on the framework to promote consistency and efficiency in combating child labor. Its five initiatives  are as follows:
 * The Child Labor Knowledge Sharing System was created with updated information and resources contributed by 300 and counting users.
 * The partnerships were strengthened through restructuring the National Child Labor Committee and its sub-committees, and creating the Sagip Batang Manggagawa Quick Action Team and other initiatives to focus on strengthening the regional committees.
 * They provided authentic and effective service through projects such as Kabuhayan para sa Magulang ng Batang Manggagawa (KASAMA) Project, Project Angel Tree, Eliminating Child Labor in the Tobacco Industry (ECLTI) Project, and Integrated Services for Migratory Sugar Workers (I-SERVE SACADAS) Project.
 * They strengthened campaigns and intensified implemented projects to promote the normalization of a child labor-free environment.
 * Lastly, guided by the laws and policies enforced, the programs aided in working through the cases and provided legal actions such as creating the Working Child’s Permit and closing establishments that promote child labor.

Child Labor-Free Barangays
Consistent with the PPACL framework and part of the Child Labor and Elimination Program, the project Child Labor-Free Barangay aims exactly what the name insinuates: eliminate child labor in every barangay in every country. Each labor-free barangay will be given a three-year certification and endorsement to DOLE programs once the barangay has completed the criteria and other requirements and submitted the proper documents in being enlisted as “child labor-free.” They should also have at least four agencies working within their area in order to promote child protection.

List of Barangays
As of 2014, the Child Labor-Free Barangay has already saved 53 barangays in 10 regions:  

HELP ME Convergence Program Against Child Labor
HELP ME Convergence Program Against Child Labor mainly aims to provide converged strategies to address issues concerning child labor. HELP ME stands for: H for Health services; E for Education and training, L for Livelihood opportunities for people involved; P for Prevention, protection, and prosecution; M for Monitoring; and lastly, E for Evaluation. It is founded by Cabinet's Human Development and Poverty Reduction Cluster (HDPRC) together with President Benigno S. Aquino III., Department of Labor and Employment, and Department of Social Welfare and Development. The whole program will keep in line through the following objectives: keeping a monitoring system for the child laborers and the services provided to them, delivering services fitting to the situations of the child laborers, and finally, collaborating with different departments and program partners such as DOLE, DSWD, DepEd, DOH, DILG, DA, DOJ, TESDA, NEDA, CWC, PIA and NCIP.

This convergence program was implemented in the period of 2013 to 2016 with the proposed budget of 9 billion, hoping that by the end of the project, child labor will be eliminated by 75%, or more specifically, to move out at least 893,000 children from the worst forms of child labor.

Project Angel Tree
Introduced by the Bureau of Women and Young Workers, the Project Angel Tree works as a connection for child laborers and those stakeholders who wish to collaboratively partake in protecting their rights. This project also contributes to the program Child Labor Prevention and Elimination Program. The primary objective of the project is to create an “Angel Tree Community,” wherein Angels, which are the donors and contributors, grant the “wishes” of the child laborers. The Angel Tree itself is an image for the cause, wherein it is targeted that through this project, the Angels will continue to “bear fruit” for the children who need them. They call this system value networks, where through them, positive social interaction would be formed and child laborers would be granted access to resources.

In 2010, Project Angel Tree has helped 15,902 victims of child labor in the country.

Philippine National Strategic Framework for Plan Development for Children
Philippine National Strategic Framework for Plan Development for Children, or shortly called, Child 21, serves as a guide for initiatives and programs established to promote and protect the rights of the children. The framework includes different activities and strategies in order to provide child-friendly environments, education, protection from threats including sexual exploitation, child labor, and child-trafficking, and other modes of development for the children.

Kamalayan Development Foundation
In 1995-1997, with the help of International Labour Organization (ILO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Kamalayan Development Foundation progressed from Kamalayan Development Center through establishing anti-child recruitment agencies in Davao City, Cebu City, and Ormoc City. This started numerous initiatives which granted children freedom from work enslavement. The organization founded rescue operations, participated in governmental and international campaigns and advocacy activities, imprisoned child labors, and finally, identified and rescued child laborers in plantations, factories, prostitution facilities, and other exploitative locations.The Kamalayan Development Foundation seeks to expand nationwide through the continuous support of ILO.

Visayan Forum Foundation Inc. (VFFI)
As a child laborer herself, Ma. Cecilia Flores-Oebanda spearheaded the Visayan Forum Foundation Inc. in order to eradicate slavery and human trafficking. Its actions revolve around providing residential care to victims, mainly women and children, of difficult circumstances such as exploitation and child labor. The organization has established programs such as:
 * Centers of Hope: These are safe houses that aim to provide protection and shelter to girl-children and women victims.
 * iFight Movement: This movement seeks to train, equip, and empower the youth with a better mentality for change and information on fighting against human trafficking.
 * Policy and Advocacy Resource Center: This provides volunteers and partners a space to share information in order to develop the current campaigns and update information on the current environment on human trafficking and domestic work.
 * Ventures for Freedom: This educates and provides communities innovative strategies in order to stray away from the possibility of human trafficking and domestic work, tackling the cause to prevent the problem from progressing.

ChildFund Philippines
In 1971, ChildFund began by partnering with religious organizations, and eventually, the communities. The organization helps secure the future of children vulnerable to exploitation, child labour, and other causes, and builds a community that would ensure their safety and protection. Each year, they contribute $8 million to their partnerships worldwide, including the Philippines, directly helping 250,000 children and counting.

World Vision Development Foundation, Inc.
World Vision Development Foundation Inc. performs through partnering with Christians all over the world to seek justice and promote human welfare through various activities and programs such as spreading awareness, changing unjust structures, and transforming the youth by encouraging involvement and protecting their rights. The partnership with organization started when its founder, Robert Willard Pierce, initiated the China Challenge, which led to sponsoring and caring for the poor and needy. It first helped an orphanage called The Good Shepherd’s Fold in 1957, and since then, it has continued to move to foster a healthy environment for the children and their families.

ABK3 LEAP
Pag-Aaral ng Bata para sa Kinabukasan (ABK) LEAP Livelihoods, Education, Advocacy and Protection to Reduce Child Labor in Sugarcane Areas is the third phase of the ABK Initiative that aims to withdraw children from exploitative labor. In four years, 2011-2015, ABK3 LEAP intends to provide education, raise awareness, support research, contribute to the continuous development, and support data collection on child labor. The project mainly focuses on 11 provinces, namely Batangas, Bukidnon, Camarines Sur, Capiz, Cebu, Davao del Sur, Iloilo, Leyte, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, and North Cotabato. It targets to provide for 52,000 children at ages 5-17 years old and 25,000 households.

The project is implemented by the following organizations: World Vision Development Foundation Inc., ChiWorld Vision Development Foundation, Inc. ChildFund Philippines, Educational Research and Development Assistance Foundation, Inc. (ERDA), Sugar Industry Foundation, Inc. (SIFI), Community Economic Ventures, Inc. (CEVI), and  University of the Philippines Social Action and Research for Development Foundation (UPSARDF).

International Labor Organization (ILO)
In 1948, the Philippines joined the International Labor Organization (ILO) and has remained one of the active participants in its advocacy. As the country face problems on employment, more specifically, child labor, the partnership paved way to projects that will help in the elimination of child labor. The organization supports the country through promoting growth and developing their skills through quality education, especially for the children who remain victims to employment.

Its social partners include the DOLE, employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL), Associated Labor Unions-TUCP (ALU-TUCP), Federation of Free Workers (FFW), Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK) and Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP).

International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC)
International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) varies from one country after another, dependent on the current situations of child labor persisting in the country specified. It aims to eliminate child labor in its different sectors, such as direct action, advocacy and awareness, institutional development, social services and poverty alleviation, and legislation and policy development. The following are the projects ILO has established through IPEC:
 * Programme to Combat Child Labour in the Fishing Sector in Indonesia and the Philippines (1999-2004)
 * Programme to Combat Child Labour in the Footwear Sector in South-East Asia (Phase I)(1999-2004)
 * Assessing the Situation of Children in the Production, Sales, and Trafficking of Drugs in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand (2002-2004)
 * Supporting the Time-Bound Programme on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour in the Republic of the Philippines (2002-2006)
 * Prevention and Reintegration of Children Involved in Armed Conflict: An Inter-Regional Project – The Philippine Component (2003-2006)
 * Towards a Child Labour-free Philippines: Building on Past Gains and Addressing Challenges (2011-2013)

= Group 3 - Labor Migration Policy in the Philippines =

Number of Filipino Migrants
The Stock Estimate of Overseas Filipinos.

Gender
Among the Filipino migrants, there is a significant amount of migrants that are Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW). Many of the OFWs are Overseas Contract Workers (OCW).

Age
OFWs are distributed among different age groups. The 25-29 age bracket comprises more OFWs than the other age groups.

Origin
OFWs come from all parts of the country, and not a lot them come from the National Capital Region (NCR).

OFW Destinations
Although many permanent migrants are residing in the Americas, most OFWs are working in Asian countries. As of 2013, the top destinations for OFWs are Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Occupations
Number of Deployed Landbased Overseas Filipino Workers by Major Occupational Category, New Hires

History of Migration Policies
The history of Philippine Labor Migration policies can be traced as far back as 1521, when the Filipino natives started to man ships in the Manila – Acapulco Galleon trade. Filipinos started working in the dockyards and aboard ships traveling as far as Mexico, under the mandate of Spanish colonizers. In order to escape maltreatment by the Spaniards, many of those Filipino workers resorted to “jumping ship”, settling in state ports like Acapulco, Mexico and Louisiana, USA. They were the first generation of Filipino labor migrants. Since then, three “waves” of labor migration occurred (in the 1900-1940’s, the 1940s-1970’s, and the 1970s-1990’s), each wave taking the Philippines closer to becoming one of the world’s largest labor exporting countries, as it is today.

The majority or the bulk of the temporary migration/ contractual/ labor migration started in the mid-1970s with the triggering of the formal adoption of the Overseas Employment Program with the Philippine Labor Code in 1974. It was also in the mid-1970s that the government started to mobilize and promote labor migration in the middle east as it has opened an opportunity for the Ferdinand Marcos, the then President of the Philippines, to export young unemployed men from the stagnating economy and be able to regulate and encourage labor outflows. The third wave of migration that took place in the 1970s was due to the economic downturn caused by an increase in crude oil prices. At this time, job loss in the country was tremendous. On the other side of the globe, however, oil-exporting countries were making large profits and this created a demand for more laborers to support their new projects. Marcos saw this as a chance to utilize the Philippines’ surplus labor and he created a foreign policy called “Development Diplomacy,” which focused on exporting such surplus labor. In 1980, the number of overseas workers set for deployment by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) had increased by 75% from that of the previous year.

Factors affecting the Labor Flow in the Philippines
Labor Flows in the Philippines has been determined mainly by three factors: Rapid Population Growth, Uneven Development and Labor Oversupply and Unemployment.
 * Rapid Population Growth has been a large contributing factor in labor migration. Rapid population growth, which was one of the highest in the world during the 70s-90s, has caused urban growth problems such as overcrowding, traffic congestion, the emergence of squatter areas and slums and ultimately unemployment. This has led migrant workers from the countryside explore outside of the country.
 * Uneven population distribution of in the urbanized areas of the country and its other regions has caused socioeconomic imbalance. This socioeconomic imbalance or disparities has been seen to have caused the augmentation of the macroeconomic policies rendering it favourable for the urbanized areas, giving much attention to the industrial sector than the agricultural sector on the other regions of the country. Trade policies have also been seen to be highly biased on the rural development favouring industrial centers like the Metro Manila.
 * Poor labor absorptive capacity of the country’s economy has been a contributing factor for the magnitude of labor migration outside the country. This draws back to the rapid growth of the population outpacing the growth of the country thus causing further unemployment.

Current Government Policies
Around four centuries after the first Filipino laborers migrated, a law on Philippine labor migration was finally enacted in 1995. The creation of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8042) was triggered by the growing pressures on the Philippines imposed by the murder case of Flor Contemplacion. This case almost severed bilateral ties between the Philippines and Singapore (Contemplacion’s host country), negatively affecting the former’s economy with a $61.3B decrease in investments by the latter. Graver than the economic distress caused by the Contemplacion case, was the reality it symbolized for the Filipinos. It was the final blow in a long struggle against the abuse suffered by Filipino migrant workers in their host countries. Besides that, other problems also existed, such as the abundance of so-called "tourist workers"—workers who migrated without going through the due process of labor migration and the proper briefing provided by regulatory government agencies.Faced with such problems, RA 8042 was created with its goal: "to institute the policies of overseas employment and establish a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers and their families and overseas Filipinos in distress."RA 8024 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos act of 1995 seeks to deliver and provide full protection and promote full and equal employment opportunities for migrant workers. According to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, the act is intended for the assurance of the dignity and fundamental human rights and freedom of the Filipino citizens with an imperative to have an access to court and quasi-judicial bodies for the distressed overseas Filipinos. RA 8042 provided mechanisms to protect Filipino labor migrants from issues such as illegal recruitment and abuse by their employers. Some of the services that the government was to provide as stipulated in the law (Articles II-V) were the following:


 * To prevent illegal recruitment: issuance of travel advisories & information dissemination on labor and employment conditions and migration to be published thrice a quarter in a general circulation newspaper; creation of the Migrant Workers Loan Guarantee Fund of P100M for pre-departure and family loans of migrant workers


 * To aid migrant workers in distress in their host countries: creation of Emergency Repatriation Fund of at least P100M for repatriation of migrant workers in times of war, epidemic, disasters (natural or manmade), etc.


 * To enforce migrant workers’ rights in their host countries: establishment of Migrant Workers and Other Overseas Filipinos Resource Center which will provide, among many others, counsel and legal services, welfare assistance (medical services), post-arrival orientation, settlement and community networking services, human resource development (skills training), monitoring of daily situations of migrant workers, etc.; Rights and Enforcement Mechanisms Under International Human Rights Systems by the DFA (which will see to it that Filipino migrant workers who are victims of abuse and violation will receive the treatment they deserve under international human rights systems)


 * For returning Filipino migrant workers: establishment of re-placement and monitoring center which will aid their reintegration into the Philippine society by developing livelihood programs and promoting their local employment, among other services


 * Legal Services: creation of Legal Assistance Fund of P100M that will be used exclusively to provide legal services to Filipino migrant workers and overseas Filipinos in distress

In 2001, the Arroyo administration took a new stand regarding migrant workers. While RA 8042 stipulates that "the State does not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national development… [rather], the existence of the overseas employment program rests solely on the assurance that the dignity and fundamental rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizen shall not, at any time be compromised or violated,"[6] President Arroyo declared overseas employment as a "legitimate option for the country’s work force. As such, government shall fully respect labor mobility, including the preference for overseas employment." Such statement signaled the shift of the government’s role from merely managing migrant workers in their ventures abroad to actively promoting "international labor migration as a growth strategy, especially of the higher skilled, knowledge-based workers."

In 2001–04, the following employment-promoting strategies were put action: enhancing the skills and competencies of the Philippine labor market by giving them easier access to training programs, facilitating employment by providing updated information on job opportunities to ensure the matching of workers’ skills and jobs, etc.

In 2010, RA 10022 or an Act Amending RA 8042 was enacted. The amendments to the law sought to further improve the protection mechanisms provided for Filipino migrant workers. RA 10022 is an act that amends RA 8024 that further improves the standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families and the overseas Filipinos in distress. This amendment establishes a continuous monitoring of international conventions, ratify those that guarantee protection of the migrant workers and enter bilateral agreement with the countries hosting overseas Filipino workers, free and accessible skills development and enhancement program for the unskilled workers. The state will also recognize non-government organizations, trade union, workers association, stakeholders and their similar entities duly recognized as legitimate in the protection of the Filipino overseas workers.

From 1565 to 2010, the face of Philippine Labor Migration had continued to evolve. Today, this stronger, systematized policy that the country adopts is one that neighboring countries like for example Indonesia try to emulate.

Regulatory Impact Analysis on the Philippine Labor Migration Policies
According to Aniceto C. Orbeta Jr. and Michael R.M. Abrigo, on their research Managing International Labor Migration: The Philippine Experience, however the Philippines is seen as the global model in managing international labor migration, the Philippine Migration Management Infrastructure has inefficiencies that needed to be restructured or highlighted. This includes the inefficiency of the migration policies to resolve illegal recruitment cases, professionalization of the Household Service Worker Sector or the HSW has been unknown to migrant workers, minimum wage provision has been violated by the stipulation of a lower minimum wage, and issues regarding the no-placement fee provision. Cost of deployment for workers has been greatly affected by the inclusion of Language and Culture and Stress Management trainings.

Labor Export Policy as Part of the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016
The Labor Export Policy (LEP) of the Philippines aims to protect and support its migrant workers. For a country who chooses to solve its unemployment by making work abroad more convenient for Filipinos, the Philippines has made several processes in order to protect and support its citizens.

To be able to work abroad, Filipinos must go through a licensed recruiter or a government agency or have their contracts approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

In order to protect its migrants, the Philippines has made private recruiters pass through certain government standards. In order to be a licensed recruitment agency, it must be Filiipino-owned, meet capitalization and bondign requirement as well as not charging the worker more than one month’s salary as a placement fee.

To be able to provide quality labor to other countries and support to Filipinos, the Philippine government provides a number of subsidized benefits suchs as pre-migration training on social and work conditions abroad, life insurance and pension plans, medical insurance and tuition assistance for the migrant and his or her family, and eligibility for pre-departure and emergency loans. Registration for these benefits, which are administered by the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) is compulsory. This is paid for by the agency from the direct wages of the migrant or directly from the migrant himself/herself.

In the case of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) are to be required to apply for all social security schemes of the government Asset Reform. e.g. SSS, Philhealth.

=== Procedures and Qualifications in Becoming an OFW === For those who are going through certain agencies for employment abroad, the following will be asked of you for submission to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

Land-based

 * 1) Duly accomplished OFW Information Sheet
 * 2) Your Verified Employment Contract
 * 3) PDOS Certificate, National Certificate (NC) II, Comprehensive Pre-Departure Education Program (CPDEP) Certificate from OWWA (For HSWs)
 * 4) Verified Insurance Policy

Sea-based

 * 1) Seafarer's Information Sheet
 * 2) Your Employment Contract (original and duplicate)
 * 3) Seafarer's Registration Certificate (SRC) (original)
 * 4) Seafarer's Identification and Record Book (SIRB) (original)

Fees
Recruitment agencies will charge service fees from your employer as payment for services rendered in recruiting you. The employer also pays the cost of: Your agency is allowed to collect from you a placement fee equivalent to your one month salary, except in countries prohibiting collection of fees from workers. But there are agencies that collect much more than that, without receipts.
 * PHP200.00 - POEA Processing Fee
 * US$25.00 (PHP equivalent) - OWWA (Overseas Workers Welfare Administration) Membership Contribution (valid for two years)
 * PHP900.00 - PhilHealth-Medicare (for one year coverage)

Remittance from OFWs
Remittances of OFWs in millions of US Dollars : * Remittances coursed through banks

** Partial data only until April 2015

Remittances of OFWs according to regions in millions of US Dollars: * Partial data only until April 2015

=== Salary, Taxes and Benefits === According to Hans Cacdac, POEA Head, OFWs are required to be given salary of a minimum of $400 a month. OFWs are also exempted from having their income taxed by the Philippines.

In agreement with the rules of POEA, OFWs are entitled to the following benefits:
 * eight hours' rest per day
 * one day off a week
 * free transportation from the Philippines to the host country and back
 * free accommodations and food
 * free medical and dental services
 * vacation leave with pay of up to 15 days a year
 * Personal life accident, medical and repatriation insurance from a reputable insurance company
 * Remittance of money to the Philippines, and assistance from the employer in setting up a bank account for this
 * just and humane treatment from the employer

Health
With OFWs travelling back and forth between countries, it cannot be avoided that disease will be spread from one nation to another. The risk involved here is that communities and people who have never been exposed to a certain disease will not have the necessary antibodies to fight the sickness.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus
One of the common health hazards with working abroad is HIV. The spread of the disease was due to the limited condom use, multiple partnering, clients of sex workers, low HIV knowledge, and low perceived HIV risk. It was expected by the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) on June 22, 2015 that the number of OFWs testing positive to HIV could breach 4,000 if the government fails to take action. As of April 2015, the number of OFWs infected already reached 3,509 with the 221 new cases from January to April 2015. The median age of infected OFWs is 33 and mostly male. They comprise 14 percent of the aggregate 24,936 cases in the Philippine HIV and AIDS Registry as of April 2015.

Ebola and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-COV)
During the Ebola outbreak, nations were  devastatingly affected with the highly contagious virus. President Benigno Aquino III held off from announcing whether or not the country will send a team of health workers to West Africa .As the disease is spread via direct contact with an infected person, even after a short period after death, the risk of infection is very high and direct contact to any individual should be avoided to prevent the further spread of the virus. During this time, the MERS-COV, another highly contagious virus,  has already been put on the watch-list. Precautions were made to prevent the spread of the virus through education, close monitoring, and working with global authorities to deal with the diseases.

Abuse
The issue commonly seen in social networks is that of physical abuse under foreign employment. These abuse cases can be caused by their own employers or by their co-workers. The intensity of each case can range from physical abuse to rape or even murder.



Cases
Jasmin Vergara suffered from sexual and physical abuse from her employers in Saudi in September 2012. She was asked to do sexual favors and was beaten upon refusal. When she received gifts or owned something that was not allowed by the employers, she was beaten. The sons of her employers would molest and sexually harass her. She was only kept silent by her responsibility to her family.

Another OFW, who remains anonymous, was abused by a female employer in Kuwait before she escaped. She suffered being poured hot water on her back so that she would wake up and also suffered having her head hit the wall several times. Kuwait court ordered her employer to pay P2 million in damages to the OFW.

Movements
Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto suggested to increase the number of trained government personnel who can give comfort and aid to OFWs. This can be done, according to Recto “[By adding] a fourth leg to the traditional agencies assisting the OFWs and that would be the Department of Social Welfare and Development which can dispatch professional social workers to countries where there are Filipinos in distress who need to be aided.” He also stated that there are budget limitation in and one possible funding source are “reasonable adjustments” in operating cost and overhead costs of DSWD’s Conditional Cash Transfer program in 2014.

Illegal Recruitment
The POEA apprehends numerous illegal recruiters regularly. Some of these recruiters submitted fake documents, which can be defined as the presenting false information. The cancellation of their license is then imposed with a corresponding penalty.

There are certain penalties associated with illegal recruitment: Provided, however, that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
 * 1) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine not less than two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
 * 2)  The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

Many illegal recruitment agencies form for the sake of profit and some examples of how they earn money is by stealing the applicant’s money or by using the applicant in human trafficking or as drug mules for drug trafficking.

POEA has partnered with an online recruitment company, Jobstreet.com, to fight illegal recruitment. In 2012, 152 cases of illegal recruitment with 312 victims were filed.

Overseas Filipino Workers incarcerated or executed abroad
The Aquino Administration has been the subject of scrutiny for international labor issues. According to Migrante International, a militant group supporting overseas workers, the current administration holds the record of having the most number of OFW executions since the implementation of the Philippine labor export policy in 1974.

In April 2015, the nation witnessed Mary Jane Veloso’s clamor for clemency from the government of Indonesia, in order to reverse her death sentence due to her drug trafficking case. Inasmuch as President Aquino appealed to Joko Widodo, president of Indonesia, the administration was bashed by a considerable majority especially on social media arguing that its efforts are always “last minute.” Not to be ignored is Veloso’s mother’s statement, “taumbayan ang tumulong.”

In December 2014, Carlito Lana, an OFW in Saudi Arabia, was sentenced to death due to his murder case. Being forced to pray during Muslim prayer time, Lana killed his employer in 2010 and was convicted in the same year. In 2014, his death was ordered by the Saudi Arabian government. Lana was the sixth OFW executed under the present administration.

As of April 2015, there is a total of 88 Filipinos in the death row in various countries according to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Regarding the Legal Assistance Fund for OFWs, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad stated that the DFA has an allocation of Php100 million in the 2015 national budget in response to militant groups’ accusations of insufficient funding for the sector supposed to extend support to overseas workers facing criminal charges in other countries.

These two cases are just a microcosm of the difficulties that Overseas Filipino Workers encounter in the event that they get caught in the intricacies of foreign law and regulations. Not to be forgotten is the case of Flor Contemplacion, sentenced to death in 1995 in Singapore, which paved the way to the review of the international labor laws of the Philippines.

Employment Opportunities
The volume of OFWs working abroad as a proportion of the labor force of the country has increased dramatically. In 2014, the number of Filipinos working abroad grew by 137 percent from its number in the year 2000.

In the 1990s the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) calculated that the country needed to create at least one million jobs annually in order to reach full employment by the year 2000. However, in 1994 only 415,000 jobs became available while the country's labor force increased by around 700,000.

According to the results of the 2014 Survey on Overseas Filipinos, the total number of OFWs currently stands at 2.3 million, based on the total number of OFWs working abroad anytime from April to September 2014.

It was observed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) that the country’s full employment goal couldn’t be met with the domestic labor conditions and only through sending contract workers overseas could the country provide jobs for its people. Therefore, unemployment alleviation is one benefit from labor migration. (add citation from baseline article)

Remittances
For countries like the Philippines, remittances are the main benefit of labor migration. With higher wages abroad, money can be sent back to the workers' families in the Philippines and this money is either consumed or saved. Therefore, remittances from abroad increase consumption in the source country and create more demand for goods, either through formal banking channels (where the government is able to measure foreign exchange) or through informal channels, the money circulates within the source country and helps stimulate the economy.

Furthermore, families who receive remittances tend to have a higher financial status. A slight decrease in poverty levels has been observed as a result. On the other hand, there is no clear negative relationship between income inequality and remittances in the Philippines.

Total OFW remittances have been increasing for the past years. In 1990, the yearly remittances reached the one billion US dollar mark and 24 years later, in 2014, had increased to 24 billion US dollars. Data from 2005 and 2014 show  a 128 percent increase in remittances.

Remittances have helped stabilize the government’s national accounts. From 1975 to 1994, these remittances accounted for 2.6% of the country’s gross national product (GNP). However, according to the 2011 figures, remittances rose to around 11.17% of the country’s GNP.[10] NEDA economists believe that without these earnings from abroad, economic growth would be much lower. The country’s GNP grew because of high rates of OFW remittances and the government believed that the money remitted was used to help start-up small businesses, boost consumer spending and enable small-scale construction.[5] In 2014, remittances from OFWs constituted ten percent of the Philippines’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Foreign Exchange Reserves and Debt Repayment
As of 2012 the country has huge debts, but the overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) foreign exchange remittances have kept the country's debts from increasing to critical levels. Not only is foreign debt being paid with these remittances but they are also used as collateral for new loans. Furthermore, they help to improve the balance of payments and reduce the trade gap. Foreign exchange reserves mainly come from labor migration and OFW remittances have surpassed the export sector in producing foreign exchange. For this reason the government is supporting overseas deployment of the labor force which has reached around one million Filipinos per year.[11]

Decrease in Labor Force
Although the labor force of the country has been increasing, labor migration has caused a lack of skilled workers, especially specialist workers who choose to work abroad for higher wages. As well as the social issues caused by OFWs and those they leave behind, the decrease in specialists has forced companies and government agencies to hire less experienced workers for highly skilled jobs.[12]

With what is colloquially called “brain drain,” the Philippines loses its human capital with the continuously growing number of Filipinos who decide to work abroad mostly for better compensation. This “exodus” of workers, such as nurses and doctors, will eventually lead to the country having a shortage of skilled workers in various sectors.

Overseas Filipino Workers also decide to work abroad during their prime years, i.e. 25-34 years old. This age bracket constitutes 48.5 percent of the total OFW population in 2014. On the side of the Philippines, this diaspora of Filipinos is a loss to the country due to the productivity that they could have contributed had they been working in the domestic sectors rather than abroad.

Economic Dependence
With the growing number of OFWs sent abroad, the national economy, bolstered by remittances from other countries, becomes conditioned by the very fact that the growth exhibited by the economy is due mainly to monetary remittances by OFWs and not really contributed by national growth per se.

The economic consequences of being import-dependent and export-oriented redound to the disadvantage of the Philippines as it furthers mechanisms of dependence on other countries. In addition, the Labor Export Policy conceals the national economy’s innate weakness through the remittances of OFWs to their families, with the local manufacturing industry performing poorly but nonetheless compensated for by the said source of income.

Broken Families
One of the consequences of working abroad is separation from one’s family. Reports from the POEA, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) and Non-Government Organizations, as presented by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago in 2007 for Senate Bill 1779, all point to the negative effects of separation due to labor migration in the OFWs’ families, most especially their children. Such effects include “broken marriages, drug addiction, sexual immorality, crimes, suicidal attempts and psychological breakdowns”

= Group 4 - VP J. Binay = Jejomar “Jojo” Binay was born in Paco, Manila as Jesus Jose Cabauatan Binay on November 11, 1949 to Diego Medrano Binay and Lourdes Gatan. He is the fifteenth Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines under President Benigno S. Aquino III. He is also currently serving as the president of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines.

He was appointed by former President Corazon Aquino as officer-in-charge of Makati City from 1986-1987. After his assignment, he was elected as Makati City mayor from 1988-1998. During this term, he acted as MMDA chairman from 1990 to 1991. In 2001, he was reelected as mayor until the end of his term in 2010. He resigned as Chairman of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council and as Presidential Adviser on Overseas Filipino Workers in June 22, 2015.

Binay is a member of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), which is a coalition between the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino and the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino - Lakas ng Bayan. It was founded as an electoral alliance in 2012, and later became an official political party in 2014.

Early Life
Orphaned at the age of nine, he was adopted by his uncle, Ponciano Binay.

Marriage and Family Life
He is married to Dr. Elenita Sombilo Binay who also served as mayor of Makati from 1998 to 2001. They have five children.
 * Maria Lourdes "Nancy" Binay (incumbent senator)
 * Mar-Len Abigail Binay (Representative of the 2nd District of Makati)
 * Jejomar Erwin "Junjun" Binay (incumbent Makati City mayor)
 * Marita Angeline "Anne" Binay
 * Joanna Marie Blanca "JM" Binay

== Education ==

High School
Binay finished basic education at the Philippine Normal College Training Department and graduated from the University of the Philippines Preparatory School.

College
He went to the University of the Philippines Diliman for college and graduated in 1962 with a degree in Political Science.

Post-graduate studies
He continued on to the UP College of Law and graduated in 1967 then pass the board examinations in 1968. He got a masters degree from the University of Sto. Tomas in 1980 and a masters degree in National Security Administration from the National Defense College of the Philippines. He took up Strategic Economic Program in the Center for Research and Communication. He enrolled in a Non-Resident and General Staff Course at the Command and General Staff College, AFP and joined the seniors executive fellow program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University. He earned a doctorate in Public Administration (Honoris Causa) from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. In 1993, he received a diploma in Land Use Program from the University of the Philippines. In 1996, he finished the Top Management Program at the Asian Institute of Management in Bali, Indonesia. He also took up the Joint Services and Command Staff course in the AFP. He also has a Masters Degree in Management at the Philippine Christian University and a diploma in Environmental and Natural Resources Management from the University of the Philippines Open University.

Legal Career
Upon passing the bar examination for Law, Binay took up human rights law. During the Martial Law period, he represented the political prisoners in the 1970s for no charge. After some time, he himself was detained.

It was also during the Marcos regime that Binay and other human rights lawyers created Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity, and Nationalism (MABINI).

Graft Charges (2006)
Former Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay - together with his wife, Elenita, and nine others - were charged with graft by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan. Allegedly, he had irregular purchases worth PhP 232 million from the years 1991-2006.

More investigation was done to see possible involvement of other officials of Makati City, as others may have also been involved in the scandal.

Binay was cleared of the charges by the Sandiganbayan due to the lack of probable cause even prior to Binay's arraignment.[1 ]

BIR Debt (2007)
Then Makati Mayor Binay was ordered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to settle Makati City government's PhP 1.1 billion worth of unpaid taxes from the years 1999-2002. The BIR said that failure for Binay to do so would make the former go after the latter's properties.

Ordered by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Binay was made to pay the deficiency in taxes amounting to more than PhP 1.1 billion to the BIR, in December 2009.

Binay's camp claimed and accused former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of political harassment. Because of this, as per the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), a suspension order was served against Binay over alleged corruption. The latter said that the tax obligations were already settled between the BIR and the Makati City government.

Despite the controversy of this tax liability issue, Binay still won the position of Vice President in 2010 by a landslide victory. [2 ]

Extramarital Affair and Leak of Personal Information (2010)
A photo of then Vice Presidential candidate and former Makati City Mayor Binay, with his rumored mistress, was leaked online.

Though he admitted to having an extramarital affair, he said that the leaked photo was part of "black propaganda" against him, because of his high ratings in the Vice Presidential survey conducted prior to the leaking of the photo.

The alleged "black propaganda" device had little to no effect on the campaign of Binay, who closed the gap of votes between him and leading Vice Presidential candidate Senator Manuel "Mar" Roxas II in a formerly conducted survey. Despite the issue, Binay's landslide victory landed him the position of Vice President.[3 ]

Corruption Allegations (2014-present)
The following are corruption allegations against Binay dating from 2014-present: Investigations regarding all these allegations of corruption are being done by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Philippine Senate, and the Office of the Ombudsman.

Platform for 2016
Vice President Binay disclosed his platform for his 2016 Presidential bid during his speech in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in Cebu City on March 20, 2015. Binay aims to improve the situation in the state colleges and universities, public hospitals and clinics, police stations, and mass housing. He promises to increase the salaries and benefits of public school teachers, public health workers, members of the police force and other public servants. Binay also plans to redesign and re-engineer the transportation system of the country. He commits on building infrastructures and to prioritize creating more jobs. He proposes to change the constitution to boost the economy and speed up the country's development.[4 ]

== Awards and Honors == Jejomar Binay has received a number of awards throughout his career, such as:
 * Outstanding chairman, Metro Manila Development Authority – September 19, 1992
 * Award on the Luzon Campaign Medal – November 10, 1992
 * Special Presidential Award for Service – June 15, 2002
 * Leadership Award, Presidential Citation – October 6, 2002
 * Most Outstanding City Mayor of Makati and Consumers Advocate Award – July 4, 2003
 * U. P. Oblation Run Award – February 7, 2004
 * Centennial Medal of Honor – June 4, 2005
 * Outstanding Public Official and Great Achiever – October 28, 2005
 * World Mayor Award granted by London-based City Mayors, a think tank on urban affairs – December 2006

= Group 5 - Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program =

Background
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, more commonly known as CARP, is an agrarian reform law of the Philippines whose legal basis is the Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). It is the redistribution of private and public agricultural lands to help the beneficiaries survive as small independent farmers, regardless of the “tenurial” arrangement. Among its goals are to provide landowners equality in terms of income and opportunities, empower land owner beneficiaries to have an equitable land ownership, enhance the agricultural production and productivity, provide employment to more agricultural workers, and put an end to conflicts regarding land ownership.

The Agrarian Reform is part of the long history of attempts of land reform in the Philippines. The law was outlined by former President Corazon C. Aquino through Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order 229 on June 22, 1987, and it was enacted by the 8th Congress of the Philippines and signed by Aquino on June 10, 1988.

Key Components
The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program relies heavily on the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). As the lead implementing agency, the DAR has the responsibility in carrying out the principle aspects of the program, which are Land Tenure Improvement (LTI), Program Beneficiary Development (PBD), and the Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD).

The Land Tenure Improvement is highly recognized as the most integral aspect of the program. This component seeks to secure the tenurial status of the farmers and farmworkers. The DAR implements this component through Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD) or Non-land Transfer Schemes.

The Land Acquisition and Distribution involves the redistribution of private and government-owned land to landless farmers and farm workers. Under Section 6 of RA 9700 ( Section 16 of RA 6657 as amended) regarding Land Acquisition, the DAR identifies lands that are eligible for distribution under the CARP with accordance to the law, acquires the land by delivering a notice containing the offer with its corresponding value to the owner should he choose to accept the payment. Following the acquisition of lands under Section 11 of RA 9700(Section 26 of RA 6657 as amended) the DAR distributes these to the qualified beneficiaries, who then pay for the land through the Land Bank of the Philippines or directly to their former owners.

Under the CARP, a total target of 10.3 million hectares of land was programmed to be distributed over a span of ten years. Out of the total land, 6.5 million hectares of public disposal lands and Integrated Social Forestry areas are to be distributed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) while 3.8 million hectares of private agricultural lands are to be distributed by the DAR. From July 1987 to June 1992, the DAR was able to distribute 1.77 million hectares benefiting .933 million beneficiaries, while the DENR has distributed 1.88 million hectares to .760 million farmers.

Leasehold Operations is the alternative non-land transfer scheme that covers all tenanted agricultural lands in retained areas and in yet to be acquired or distributed lands. Under this component, the DAR mediates between the landowners and tenants so that their share tenancy arrangement could be turned into a leasehold agreement, whereby the beneficiaries will pay a fixed fee based on their own historical production records instead of paying a large percentage share of their produce to the landowner.

The Program Beneficiaries Development is a support service delivery component of CARP. It aims to aid the agrarian reform beneficiaries by providing them necessary support services to make their lands more productive, and enable them to venture in income generating livelihood projects in accordance to Section 14 of RA 9700(Section 37 of RA 6657 as amended). Under the support service delivery programs, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council(PARC) ensures that agrarian reform beneficiaries are provided with support services such as land surveys and tilting, construction of infrastructures, marketing and production assistance, credit and training.

The Agrarian Justice Deliverycomprises of two features which are the Agrarian Legal Assistance and Adjudication of Cases. Under Section 19 of RA 97600 (Section 50 of RA 6657 as amended), the DAR is hereby vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

The Agrarian Legal Assistance is under the Bureau of Legal Assistance (BALA). The BALA provides legal assistance to the beneficiaries affected by agrarian cases, particularly those whose legal rights as ARB’s are challenged by landowners.

The Adjudication of Cases involves the adjudication of cases by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The adjudication of cases deals with disputes pertaining to tenancy relations; valuation of lands acquired by DAR under compulsory acquisition mode; rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management cultivation and use of all agricultural lands; ejectment and dispossession of tenants/leaseholders; review of leasehold rentals; and other similar disputes.

Development
At the end of the 20th century, the population of the Philippines has increased rapidly to 75.32 million. This means that each family is comprised of 6 persons while living in a country of 297,410 square kilometers thus making the Philippines known for having a very high population density. In addition to this, with a population growth of 2.02 per year, the Philippine population is expected to double in the span of 25 years. 60 percent of the Philippine population is rural, and over 12 million Filipinos make a living directly from agricultural cultivation. Around 9.5 million hectares of land across the Philippines are used to plan various crops. In terms of landlessness, the number of landless agricultural families rose up from 5 million to 11.32 million families. Out of these 11.32 families, 4.6 million make a living from lands they don’t own. 0.70 million are rented, 2 million are laborers, while 1.9 million are farming as tenants.

Land Reform under Aquino Administration (1986-1992)

During the start of President Corazon Aquino’s term on 1986, the Constitutional Commission approved Section 21 under Article II, which states that “The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.” This led to the drafting of CARP, which took the Congress a year to make. On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), was passed to promote social justice and industrialization. Although it was still a product of adherence to democratic principles, this law was found to have many flaws. Because of much dissatisfaction with the agrarian reform law, proposals from peasant groups and non-government organizations grew in order to implement an alternative program that was more advantageous to them. However, this did not succeed.

CARP recognizes not only farmers but all landless workers as beneficiaries with the condition that they cultivate the land. The two main departments in charge of this program are Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Aside from the land distribution, it also provides the delivery of support services and security to the farmers.

Under the Aquino administration, a total of 898,420 landless tenants and farmers became recipients of land titles and support services. Even with this, it can be considered unsuccessful because it only accomplished 22.5 percent of land distribution in 6 years. This was due to the fact that Aquino assigned 4 different DAR secretaries. The major setback for CARP was Aquino’s Hacienda Luisita’s Stock Distribution Option, which says that she was the first landlord to evade CARP on a grand scale.

Land Reform under Ramos Administration (1992-1998)

The policies on agrarian reform under the Ramos administration focused on accelerating the direct land transfer and non-land transfer through adopting more rational, fair and inexpensive settlements. It encouraged landowners to invest in rural-based industries that are connected to agriculture. It made an amendment to Section 63 of CARL to increase the fund of this project to 100 billion. Salaries of workers and members of DAR board were increased to motivate them for more successful results as well.

The target land to be given to farmer beneficiaries under this Administration was 3.4 million hectares, 4.7 million or 60 percent of which was successfully distributed. It achieved more than double the output of the Aquino administration. It focused on “less contentious landholdings and acquisition modes,” where they chose to work with autonomous NGOs and peasant organizations. However, controversies were unavoidable as they encountered landlords openly harassing peasants with guns and forcing them out of the lands.

Land Reform under Estrada Administration (1998-2001)

This administration focused on fast tracking land acquisition and distribution. It wanted to reduce uncertainties in land market in rural places to help farmers’ efficiency and private investment to grow. It encouraged joint ventures, corporative, contact farming and other marketing arrangements to protect the status of stakeholders and promotion of agri-industrialization. They also improved the databases of the implementing agencies of DAR and DENR to fully record and update the lands covered. Estrada highlighted that there was a need to conceptualize new approaches in doing things to build a new social agreement where producers, government and private sectors work with a common goal.

The program encountered some problems such as strong landowners resistance. Tenants also complained on the limited amount of fund allocation provided by the government for the project. It aimed to complete 7.8 million hectares by 2004. Since President Estrada lasted only 2.5 years as president, the total beneficiaries of CARP was only 0.18 million or 10 percent.

Unsuccessful after 26 years

On June 30, 2014, CARP officially ended with 664 farmers killed in the name of land reform. In the 4 years of the Noynoy Aquino administration, 96 farmers have been killed as as oppose to the 9 that were killed during the Arroyo administration. 568 of these were victims of extra-judicial killings. KMP chairman Rafael Mariano said, “Farmers asserting their rights to the land were subjected to human rights abuses while peasant leaders were rendered as criminals, incarcerated and, worse, were massacred.”

CARP expired when the Congress did not approve Aquino’s proposal to extend it for 2 more years. DAR has indicated 494,945 law implementation cases since the start of the program. All of which led back to how CARP failed over the years and how it affected the lives of many innocent tenants and farmers.

CARPER
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms, known also as CALPER or CARPer, (Republic Act 9700) was an extension of CARP that was passed in August 7, 2009 and was set to expire in 2014. In December 2008, the budget for CARP expired and there remained 1.2 million hectares of agricultural land waiting to be acquired and distributed to farmers

CARPer is an act strengthening the comprehensive and distribution of all agricultural lands, instituting necessary reforms, amending for the purpose of certain provisions of republic act no.6657, otherwise known as the comprehensive agrarian reform law of 1988, as amended and appropriating funds therefor.

= Group 6 - Indigenous Peoples' Rights in the Philippines =  

Early beginnings of ancestral domains protection
In the earlier years, indigenous people’s rights were mainly narrowed on claims on the right of land, territory and ancestral domain ownership as the land is the means of ensuring the survival of the indigenous communities and culture.

Prior to R.A. 8371, the government supported the resettlement of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) from their ancestral land, which was massive during the Commonwealth and early years of the Philippine Republic. Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, reinstated in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines Section II, Article 12, first introduced to our legal system by Spain through the Royal Decree, of 13 February 1894 or the Maura law, the government passed laws to legitimize the whole sale land grabbing and provided for easy titling or grant of lands to migrant homesteaders within the traditional areas of the ICCs.

Year 1909, in the case of Carino vs. Insular Government, the court has recognized long occupancy of land by an indigenous member of the cultural communities as one of private ownership, which, in legal concept, is termed “native title”. Since then, many laws have been passed recognizing implicitly or explicitly and liberally or restrictively, the so-called “native title” or “private right.”

In the year 1919, the Second Public Land Act was enacted, recognizing the right of ownership of any native of the country who, since July 4, 1907, or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract of agricultural public land.

In 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 141, amended by R.A. 3872 of 1964, was passed which provides that members of the national cultural minorities who have resided on agricultural, public land since July 4, 1955 are entitled to recognition of ownership whether or not the land has been certified as “disposable.” They shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title. Furthermore, under Bureau of Forestry Administrative Order No. 11 of 1970, all forest concessions were made subject to the private rights of cultural minorities within the area as evidenced by their occupation existing at the time a license is issued by the government. The Revised Forestry Code of 1975 (Presidential Decree 705 under President Marcos) defines this “private right” of as “places of abode and worship, burial grounds and old clearings.”

In 1978, the Presidential Arm for National Minorities (PANAMIN) was authorized to design, implement and maintain settlements among the National Minorities. Prior to this, a Presidential Decree was issued in 1974, declaring all agricultural lands occupied and cultivated by members of the national Cultural Communities since 1964 as alienable and disposable, except the islands of Panay and Negros and the provinces of Abra, Quezon, Benguet and Camarines which became effective on March 11, 1984.  

The most recent laws before the IPRA was passed which recognize the existence of ancestral land right are the Organic Act of Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (RA 6734, 1989), and the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region (RA 6766, 1989).

Birth of Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (R.A. 8371)
The decrees that have been passed fail to encompass all the needs of the indigenous people primarily because of failure in implementation and sole focus on the land and domains only. Because of this, a more comprehensive law is needed that “seeks to stop prejudice against indigenous people through recognition of certain rights over their ancestral lands, and to live in accordance recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous people not only to their ancestral domain but to social justice and human rights, self-determination and empowerment, and their cultural integrity .” This then gave birth to movements for a comprehensive law that will protect not only the lands but human rights of the Filipino indigenous people. 

CIPRAD or the Coalition for Indigenous People’s Rights and Ancestral Domains is an alliance of Indigenous People’s Organizations (IPOs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) created to pursue the advocacy for IP rights and ancestral domains. The Coalition is participated by IPOs in the Cordillera, Region I, Nueva Vizcaya, Cagayan, Caraballo, Sierra Madre, Quezon, Aurora, Quirino, Nueva Ecija, Zambales, Pampanga, Bulacan, Mindoro Occidental, Palawan, Panay, Davao, Cagayan, Cotabato and Zamboanga. CIPRAD partnered with various NGOs organizations such as Episcopal Commission on Indigenous Peoples, National Peace Conference, Center for Living Heritage and PANLIPI (Legal Assistance Center for Indigenous Filipinos) in order to lobby for the IPRA or Indigenous People’s Rights Act 

IPRA, formerly known as Ancestral Domain Bill, was first filed in the Congress sometime in 1987 under the Senate Bill No. 909 authored by Senator Santanina Rasul, Senator Joseph Estrada and Senator Alberto Romulo, during the 8th Congress, but was never enacted in to law. In the 9th Congress, Senator Rasul introduced Senate Bill No. 1029 and Senator Macapagal-Arroyo introduced Senate Bill No. 1849. However, the bill was never sponsored and deliberated upon in the floor. 

Despite these failed efforts, the IPOs decided to give it another try. Decisions have been made during social negotiations among NGOs and POs to rename the bill from Ancestral Domain Bill to Indigenous Peoples Rights Act to emphasize the holistic approach and character of the bill. A consensus was made on December 1995 between IP representatives and NGO representatives. Seven non-negotiable points of the bill that were promoted are the following:

a) recognition of native title and rights of IPs to ancestral domains, b )respect for the right to cultural integrity, c) recognition of indigenous peoples’ political structures and governance, d) delivery of basic services to the indigenous peoples, e) respect for human rights, f) elimination of discrimination, g) and creation of an office that would cater to the IPs needs.  

Year 1996, during the 10th Congress, Senator Juan Flavier sponsored the Bill no. 1728 which meant that he has to defend the bill in all the Senate deliberations and discussions. In his sponsorship speech, he discussed the legal bases for the bill which can be found in the 1987 Constitution (i.e. Article II, Sec. 22, Aricle XIV, Sec 17, Article XIII, Sec 6, and Article XII, Sec5). He also discussed the basic rights of the ICCs, the contents of the bill itself, and the immediate need of protection of the Filipino Indigenous People.

Despite difficult hurdles and amendments enacted in the Congress which nearly brought the movement to its death, the House of Representatives finally approved the bill late in September 1997. President Fidel V. Ramos signed it on 22 October 1997 officially making it Republic Act No. 8371 Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 which aims to “Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPS) and for other Purposes.”

Indigenous People of the Philippines
“The Philippines is a culturally diverse country with an estimated 14- 17 million Indigenous Peoples (IPs) belonging to 110 ethno-linguistic groups. They are mainly concentrated in Northern Luzon (Cordillera Administrative Region, 33%) and Mindanao (61%), with some groups in the Visayas area (as of 2013).”  term indigenous people as used to reflect the contemporary international language which was formally adopted in 1993.

The term indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) was used in the Philippine Constitution to describe a group of people sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized a territory. Time immemorial refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed and utilized a defined territory devolved to them by operation of custom law/traditions or inherited from their ancestors.

Both the terms IPs and ICCs refer to homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as a community on communally bounded and defined territory, sharing common bonds of customs, traditions and other cultural traits, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads to colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture. Whereas, the Filipino majority learned very well the ways of the colonial masters by adapting to their laws and practices, the minority (IPs), consciously asserted the integrity of their ancestral territories, pre-hispanic native culture and justice systems which are viewed as diametrically opposed to the majority’s world view, but which the IPRA law attempts to recognize and interface with the national legal system.

Ancestral Domains
Ancestral domains refer to areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. This includes the spiritual and cultural bonds to the areas which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of ownership. Proof of time immemorial possession of the domain may include testimony of elders, historical accounts, anthropological or ethnographic studies, names of places using dialect or language of indigenous peoples, genealogy, treaties or pacts between or among indigenous peoples and or other populations.

Ancestral lands, as stated in the IPRA, "are forests, pastures, residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable otherwise, hunting grounds, burial rounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs and IPs who are still nomadic and or shifting cultivators."

Ancestral Lands
Ancestral lands, as stated in the law, refer to "lands occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects, and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots."

Ancestral land owners are given the right to transfer these ancestral lands and the right to redeem ancestral lands lost through vitiated consent.

Right of Empowerment and Self Governance
SECTION 13. Self-Governance. — The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

SECTION 14. Support for Autonomous Regions. — The State shall continue to strengthen and support the autonomous regions created under the Constitution as they may require or need. The State shall likewise encourage other ICCs/IPs not included or outside Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras to use the form and content of their ways of life as may be compatible with the fundamental rights defined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and other internationally recognized human rights.

SECTION 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions, and Peace Building Processes. — The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights.

SECTION 16. Right to Participate in Decision-Making. — ICCs/IPs have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous political structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils.

SECTION 17. Right to Determine and Decide Priorities for Development. — The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs, institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for national, regional and local development which may directly affect them.

SECTION 18. Tribal Barangays. — The ICCs/IPs living in contiguous areas or communities where they form the predominant population but which are located in municipalities, provinces or cities where they do not constitute the majority of the population, may form or constitute a separate barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code on the creation of tribal barangays.

SECTION 19. Role of Peoples Organizations. — The State shall recognize and respect the role of independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.

SECTION 20. Means for Development/Empowerment of ICCs/IPs. — The Government shall establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefore.

Rights to Ancestral Domain
Chapter III, section 7 of the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 covers the 8 Rights to Ancestral Domain. This chapter focuses on the identification and protection of the entitlement of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICC), and the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) as the proper owners of their ancestral land. The following rights are listed below:

This was implemented in order to stop the historical injustices experienced by the IPs. Despite the implementation of the law since the year 1997, the IPs of the Philippines still persistently experience injustices. The IPs are struggling fighting for their rights because they feel like the government has continued to neglect them.

The main criticism concerning R.A. 8371 is that it is ambiguous. One of the issues it encountered was that it is inconsistent and conflicting with the Philippines’ constitution (2).

This has become the case because of the doctrine of jura regalia, which means that “all lands of the public domain belong to the state” (2). The next problem encountered was that the ancestral domain rights’ legal characterisation as “private but communal” differentiated from the Philippines’ civil law’s idea of co-ownership of real property. This meant that areas in ancestral domains is shared by the members of the community, but that does not mean that they are considered as co-owners of the said property according the the New Civil Code (2).

Section 57 of chapter VIII ofthe Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 which states that:"Natural resources within Ancestral Domains - The ICCs/IPs shall have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domain. A non-member of ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years: provided, that a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such operation: provided, finally, that the NCIP may exercise visitorial powers and take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of ICCs/IPs under the same contract (1)."is also viewed as problematic (2) because being given the right to be prioritised in terms of development, exploitation, extraction, or harvesting of natural resources belonging in ancestral domains does not necessarily mean that an IP member is given the right of ownership of the said natural resources (3). Section 57 does not really reject the jura regalia, also known as the Regalian Doctrine or the Doctrine of Discipline expressed in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Philippine Constitutions (4). According to the constitutions mentioned, the Regalian Doctrine expresses that “all lands of the public domain, as well as all natural resources enumerated therein, whether private or public land, belong to the State.” (4). Most argue that the IPRA is flawed because it violates this (4). Instead of protecting the rights of the IPs, Section 57 strengthens argument that all natural resources found in ancestral domains belong to the State (3).

Social Justice and Human Rights
This chapter in the IPRA was written to recognize the indigenous people’ right to the same privileges and protections also afforded by the State to its citizens. The law reemphasizes that all ICC/IPs are legally entitled to fundamental universal human rights and that the State should actively create an inclusive environment with this in mind.

Among these rights include;

Equal Protection and Non-discrimination of ICCs/IPs
Patterned after international standards set by the Charter of the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the equal protection clause in the Philippine 1987 Constitution, this section places the State as duly responsible for the execution of the IPs’ human rights. The State is then called to acknowledge the ICCs/IPs position as a vulnerable group that have been historically excluded from socio-economic opportunities and to guarantee that the IPs enjoy equal protection by the law.

Rights During Armed Conflict
As signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the State is expected to respect and to ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances including local and international armed conflict. The State through the NCIP is empowered to ensure all civliians including IPs'/ICCs' safety in circumstances of emergency and conflict.

This being said, areas under Ancestral Domains and members of indigenous tribes require special regulation beyond that of the Convention as legally recognized IPs/ICCs are given the freedom to govern their territories by their own laws. Through the IPRA, the State must not;

a) Recruit children of the ICCs/IPs into the armed forces under any circumstance;

b) Conscript or recruit ICC/IP individuals against their will to the armed forces, and in particular for use against other indigenous peoples;

c) Relocate ICC/IP communities to special centers for military purposes;

d) Force ICC/IP communities, families or individuals to abandon their lands, territories, or means of subsistence; and

e) Require indigenous individuals to work for military purposes under discriminatory conditions.

These provisions protects IP autonomy as well as requires the State to work alongside tribes through an integrated emergency program which includes relief and rehabilitation efforts for IP victims of armed violence. Special emphasis is placed the impact of armed conflict of indigenous children' mental well being and development in high risk conflict areas.

Basic Services
The law guarantees indigenous peoples’ right to basic social services as provided by the State. As a vulnerable group, special attention is given for the “immediate, effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions.”

Examples of services that fit this provision include social security through the Republic of the Philippines Social Services System, housing, vocational training and employment support through various efforts of the Department of Social Welfare and Development as well as complete health coverage through the PhilHealth “No Balance Billing” from government hospitals.

Women, Children and Youth
The law also emphasizes that these rights are also to be afforded to indigenous women and children. The provisions should not result in “the diminution of rights and privileges already recognized and afforded to these groups under existing laws of general application.” The government through NCIP must provide support to organizations which are geared towards empowering women and the youth to involve themselves in community/nation building.

In accordance to the customary laws of each tribe, the government must provide mechanisms that facilitate deeper understanding of indigenous culture for women and youth while their human dignity. The law ensures the full realization of women's and youth rights but requires all mechanisms and programs to be culturally sensitive and relevant to the ICCs/IPs needs.

An example of the programs geared towards the execution of this particular provision in the IPRA is the culturally sensitive day-care program for both IP children and their mothers which NCIP mentions in its first administrative order.

Cultural Integrity
Chapter VI of the Republic Act No. 8371, Cultural Integrity

SECTION 29. Protection of Indigenous Culture, Traditions and Institutions. — The State shall respect, recognize and protect the right of ICCs/IPs to preserve and protect their culture, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation and application of national plans and policies.

SECTION 30. Educational Systems. — The State shall provide equal access to various cultural opportunities to the ICCs/IPs through the educational system, public or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives without prejudice to their right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions by providing education in their own language, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. Indigenous children/youth shall have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State.

SECTION 31. Recognition of Cultural Diversity. — The State shall endeavor to have the dignity and diversity of the cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations of the ICCs/IPs appropriately reflected in all forms of education, public information and cultural-educational exchange. Consequently, the State shall take effective measures, in consultation with ICCs/IPs concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among ICCs/IPs and all segments of society. Furthermore, the Government shall take effective measures to ensure that the State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. The State shall likewise ensure the participation of appropriate indigenous leaders in schools, communities and international cooperative undertakings like festivals, conferences, seminars and workshops to promote and enhance their distinctive heritage and values.

SECTION 32. Community Intellectual Rights. — ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

SECTION 33. Rights to Religious, Cultural Sites and Ceremonies. — ICCs/IPs shall have the right to manifest, practice, develop, and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect and have access to their religious and cultural sites; the right to use and control of ceremonial objects; and, the right to the repatriation of human remains. Accordingly, the State shall take effective measures, in cooperation with the ICCs/IPs concerned, to ensure that indigenous sacred places, including burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected. To achieve this purpose, it shall be unlawful to:

a)              Explore, excavate or make diggings on archeological sites of the ICCs/IPs for the purpose of obtaining materials of cultural values without the free and prior informed consent of the community concerned; and

b)              Deface, remove or otherwise destroy artifacts which are of great importance to the ICCs/IPs for the preservation of their cultural heritage.

SECTION 34. Right to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and to Develop own Sciences and Technologies. — ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts.

SECTION 35. Access to Biological and Genetic Resources. — Access to biological and genetic resources and to indigenous knowledge related to the conservation, utilization and enhancement of these resources, shall be allowed within ancestral lands and domains of the ICCs/IPs only with a free and prior informed consent of such communities, obtained in accordance with customary laws of the concerned community.

SECTION 36. Sustainable Agro-Technical Development. — The State shall recognize the right of ICCs/IPs to a sustainable agro-technological development and shall formulate and implement programs of action for its effective implementation. The State shall likewise promote the bio-genetic and resource management systems among the ICCs/IPs and shall encourage cooperation among government agencies to ensure the successful sustainable development of ICCs/IPs.

SECTION 37. Funds for Archeological and Historical Sites. — The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to receive from the national government all funds especially earmarked or allocated for the management and preservation of their archeological and historical sites and artifacts with the financial and technical support of the national government agencies.

Attempts to implement these rights are most recently captured by the celebration of National Indigenous People’s Month on October to November 2014. This was said to be the biggest gathering of Philippine indigenous peoples by far. Headed by the chairman of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), Felipe M. De Leon, Jr., showcased were the traditional cuisines, rituals, musical performances and other elements of culture. This gave way for indigenous peoples to interact and learn from one another’s culture. It was held in three different venues, from Oct. 22 to 23 at the Baguio Convention Center in Baguio City in Luzon in expected attendees were from groups: Gaddang, Isinay, Tinggian, Itneg, Ibanag, Yogad, Itawit, Malaweg, Kasiguran, Ivatan, Itbayat, Bugkalot, Isnag, Kalinga, Ifugao, Ibaloy, Kankanaey,  Balangao, Bontok, Applai, Ilocano, Bolinao, Pangasinan, Tagalog, Sambal, Pampangan, Ayta, Agta, Mangyan, Palawani, Molbog, Jama Mapun, Tagbanua, Pala’wan, Agutaynen, Bicolano, Batak and Cuyunon; from Nov. 6 to 7 in Zamboanga City in Mindanao aimed to highlight the groups: Yakan, Subanen, Manobo, Higaonon, Bagobo, Mandaya, Mansaka, B’laan, Sangir, Ata Manobo, T’boli, Teduray, Arumanen, Mamanwa, Maranao, Magindanao, Iranun and Tausug and from Nov. 10 to 11 in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental in Visayas for the groups: Ati, Panay Bukidnon, Waray, Abaknon, Hiligaynon and Cebuano. It was organized by the Subcommission of Cultural Communities and Traditional Arts, a subcommission of the NCCA, along with the local governments, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and private companies with the theme of “Katutubong Filipino para sa Kalikasan at Kapayapaan” [“Native Filipinos for Nature and Peace”].

Culture
The Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines are deteriorating in numbers particularly those in Mindanao because they are robbed of their ancestral domains thus becoming exposed to poverty; they are also facing violence from other groups; and they are being led to turn their back on their culture as a result of progress and development.

In August 9, 2010, World Indigenous People’s Day in the Philippines, indigenous communities issued a call to the government. Gathered at the University Hotel in UP Diliman were 65 indigenous people’s organizations with the purpose of drafting a “Indigenous Peoples’ Agenda” and submit this to the new president. Exactly two years later, in August 9, 2012, headed by the Philippine Task Force for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (TFIP), IP groups wrote an open letter to the president whom, according to Jill K. Cariño, TFIP convenor, have not responded to their earlier efforts.

The concerns they issued in 2010 were the following:

·      National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the titling of ancestral lands and domain, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP);

·      Indigenous peoples and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);

·      The peace talks between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Bangsa Moro Juridical Entity (BJE), and the National Democratic Front (NDF);

·      Human rights abuses and violations inflicted upon indigenous peoples;

·      Mining and other development projects; and

·      Conflicts between the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and other laws.

This therefore raised the question of whether the Republic Act No. 8371 was able to fulfill its intent of providing rights to the country’s indigenous peoples.

Enforcement of Rights and Conflict with Other Sectors
On October 2008, the Lumads (an indigenous group) organized a conference in Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay involving several indigenous people groups. In this summit, the indigenous people groups questioned the utility of IRPA in protecting their rights described in the IRPA. In this summit, the indigenous people groups discussed the instances the Philippine Law hindered their rights promised by IRPA. Primarily, the inconsistencies lie in how the Philippine Law prohibited them from following their customs and traditions that is centered around the indigenous people's governance of their land.

For instance, they complained that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prohibits some of the IP farmers to hunt animals, and to cultivate lands ( i.e. the 53,262-hectare part of Mt. Malindang )covered by National Integrated Protected Areas (NIPA) program; thereby, cutting off their primary source of income and food for their family. In worst case scenarios, the state outrightly utilizes its right of state to dispose public lands for activities such as mining, logging and installation of dams that infringe upon the IP's ancestral domains. And because of these instances of usurpation of ancestral domain to the IP such as wide coverage of the NIPA to the IP's ancestral domain and economic activities that require the state to exercise their right to dispose public lands, the IP's basic sources of income and food for their families are greatly affected.

The limitations and prohibitions extends not only to their basic needs but also prevents them from performing important rituals in their lives. This includes wedding ceremonies that are normally held without cost but costs around 50 to 500 pesos when NCIP officials conduct it that is burdensome to IPs who lack sources of funds.

Moreover, reported killings of tribal leaders and NCIP officers who are protecting IRPA rights, and lack of authoritative force to execute the law expose the people to more vulnerabilities instead of protecting them

Representation

Here are some of the organisations that support IRPA law and their functions:
 * Asian Development Bank (ADB)- gives loan to government to create projects such as Cordillera Agricultural Resource  Management (CHARM)  that help the development of IP's. The CHARM project involves helping the IPs in Cordillera to develop the agricultural resouce of IPs land. They also helped in project Mindanao Basic Education Development project to give poor some education


 * International Labor Organization- made some conventions regarding IPs such as poverty program, regarding on how IPs can assert more control and development of their own lands, regarding steps on how can IPs protect and guarantee their right of ownership and possesion, regarding the responsiblities of government to ensure the rights of IPs.


 * Philippine Action for Intercultural Development- helped the IPs regarding community mapping, where they help IPs in legalizing the boundaries of their respective lands


 * National Confederation of Indigenous Peoples - aims to unite the different IP rights organization to fight for their rights. Their past projects includes Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan (ADSDPP), demarcation of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) on the ground in favor of the Ati in Boracay Island etc.


 * Tribal Communities Association of the Philippine- provides legal assistance to IPs

Income and Poverty Threshold
In a poverty assessment by the Asian Development Bank, it was discovered that there was an increasing gap between the welfare performance of IP's compared to the national average. On a national scale, poverty incidence among all Filipino families declined by 10% by the passing of the IPRA (1997), but that IP regions and individuals were either experiencing a lesser degree of improvement in income growth or even a lowering of their incomes.

With majority of IPs/ICCs living in predominantly agricultural regions in the Philippines such as the Cordillera Administrative Region, they are said to be more sensitive to price changes including the dramatic increase of food basket prices during the year this study took place. The study reported that more than half of the IP families in CAR were living below the government approved poverty threshold