An analysis on the constitutionality for the Money Claims clause ( "plus his salaries for the unexpired portion

of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less") on Overseas Filipino Workers Illegal Dismissal Cases filed on 2011-2012 under Amended Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (R.A . 10022)

Comparative Study on the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 !"A" #$%&' and in its amended provision under !"A " 1$$&& and the (uestion of its constitutionality for the Money Claims on Overseas Filipino Workers )llegal *ismissal Cases filed on

ABSTRACT The rapid changes under economic globalization causes more migrant workers than ever before . Philippines has deployed 10% of the population or around 9 million Filipino workers in almost 200 destinations ,an effect of the increasing unemployment and poverty in our country.These migrants are identified as Overseas Filipino Workers, or OFWs. Person who is to be engaged, is engaged, or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state of which he or she is not a citizen or on board a vessel navigating the foreign seas other than a government ship used for military or non- commercial purposes, or on an installation located offshore or on the high seas. For their family OFW are the so called "Bagong Bayani" who contributes to boost our economy by their remittances they send home . Yet at the same enjoin little social protection and are vulnerable to exploitation and human trafficking. Working abroad means severance from families ,parents who choose to work abroad to send their children to school and provide them a good life. The study focused on OFW illegal dismissal cases between 2011-2012 with respect to the constitutionality on the money claims of R.A. 10022 also known as amended Migrant Workers Act of 2010 provides that "plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" .It contradicts and violates the rights of all Filipinos for equal protection of law and to protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare,hence Filipino working abroad is explicitly included to enjoy such rights not only Filipino working locally.The proponent wants to provide a concrete and practical study to produce propitious amendments in the foregoing provision.

INTRODUCTION For the last two decade,deployment of Overseas Filipinos Workers are rapidly increasing ,taking all the risk of being far from their families,no assurance of what life is in store for them in the new place they need to embrace.This is all because of the poverty and increasing rate of unemployment in our country.To give their family a comfortable life and better education for their children.Yet their remittances portray

an important role in the present economic status of our society. It built houses, provided health care, equipped schools and planted the seeds of businesses.These migrants has been lifting the entire families and communities out of poverty. In fact, todays thrust for Overseas Filipino Workers in the different regions around the world was already a strategic policy of the government to save a failed economy in the Philippines. With this proposition it only proves that Overseas Migrant workers should be protected by the government with their rights as a citizen and as a worker.

R.A. 8042 was amended by R.A. 1022 otherwise known as THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES in 2010. The 5th paragraph of Section 10, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 80421, does not magnify the contributions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) to national development, but exacerbates the hardships borne by them by unduly limiting their entitlement in case of illegal dismissal to their lump-sum salary either for the unexpired portion of their employment contract "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" (subject clause). Petitioner claims that the last clause violates the OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of their contract. 2

_________________________________________ 1 Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. 2 G.R. No. 167614 (March 24, 2009 ANTONIO M. SERRANO vs. Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW NAVIGATION

The above mentioned clause under R.A. 8042 was amended in R.A.10022 as Section 7. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: xxxx"In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker's salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. xxx It is amendment of that clause doesnt give any difference and stil