Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: The Philippines Migration Model serves as a benchmark for international migration governance owing to its institutionalised welfare and conflict management mechanisms. This article argues that the incorporating of relevant practices from the Philippines would strengthen the migration governance architecture of labour-sending countries.

Introduction

The Philippines is an important migrant-sending country, with the total stock of Filipino migrants estimated at 7 million. These migrant workers are predominantly unskilled and semi-skilled workers moving to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, followed by European countries, which account for 10.6 per cent of total overseas deployments. Out of the 2.19 million Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) deployed in 2024, 57.2 per cent of them were female, disproportionately employed in low-skilled occupations such as domestic work, cleaning, and basic maintenance.[i] In 2024, the personal remittances of OFWs reached up to $38.34 billion, accounting for 8.3 per cent of the country's GDP, indicating institutional confidence among the Filipino migrants.[ii]

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) recognises the Philippines’ migration system as a Global Champion for the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM).[iii] This recognition is attributed to its well-established governance framework consisting of a four-tier conflict-risk classification, pre-allocated repatriation fund, mandatory registrations, and emergency welfare triggers set by the legislation and institutions designed to safeguard them. The paper aims to analyse the regulatory and institutional mechanisms adopted by the Philippines to understand its best practices that may be adopted by other labour-sending countries.

Regulatory and Institutional Mechanisms

The Philippine government recognises labour migration as an important component of rational development and has institutionalised overseas labour mobility through a robust migration governance framework. The welfare framework of the Philippines was formed with the Labour Code in 1974, which led to the formation of the Overseas Employment Development Board and the National Seamen’s Board for regulating the export of labour. Additionally, Republic Act (RA) 8042 of 1995, also known as the Migrant Workers’ Act, was the government's first concrete measure to create welfare mechanisms for OFWs by mandating pre-departure seminars, verification of employer contracts, and the establishment of the Philippines Overseas Labour Offices (POLO). Since then, POLO has evolved into the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW), which provides assistance and welfare services to OFWs in destination countries.[iv]

The amendment of the first act in 2010, through RA 10022, mandated government monitoring over international agreements and ensured bilateral agreements with host countries, thus strengthening institutional capability. These reforms strengthened the accountability of the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) in regulatory overseas deployment and dismissed state officials failing to adhere to the international labour standards of deployment.[v] Later, in 2021, RA 11641 consolidated all the previous legislations and formed a comprehensive architecture that created the Department of Migrant Workers, making protection for OFWs a legal obligation rather than a crisis response.[vi]

In the Philippines, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), with the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE), endorsed a four-tier crisis alert system for deployment restrictions and repatriation during emergencies. The first level is the ‘precautionary stage’, with the government alerting Filipinos due to emerging early warning signs of instability, internal disturbance, or external threat. It is then followed by the second stage, which is the ‘restriction phase’ issued during threats to Filipinos' safety of life and security. In this stage, they are advised to limit movement and prepare for evacuation, if necessary, with any new deployment restricted. The third alert stage is the ‘voluntary repatriation’ in the presence of active violence or external aggression in a few parts of the country. The OFWs are advised to return to the Philippines voluntarily, either at the expense of the employer or the government, with an absolute deployment ban. The last stage is the ‘mandatory repatriation’, where the government undertakes mandatory evacuation strategies in the event of a large-scale war or widespread conflict.[vii]

The deployment bans imposed by the Philippine government over the years reflect a highly institutionalised response with unparalleled consistency. Multiple GCC countries, along with Ethiopia and Libya, have implemented deployment bans over the past three decades. The deployment of OFW was immediately suspended following the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023, which was followed by the placement of Alert 3 in June 2025 in Iran, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon.[viii] Similarly, the Sudan conflict of April 2023 provides another illustration of this framework in action, as the Philippines activated Alert Level 3,[ix] imposing an automatic total deployment ban, with repatriation and evacuation procedures facilitated by Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) officers.

Additionally, the positioning of the OWWA creates a pre-established welfare structure and protects OFWs without active involvement by the government. The Emergency Repatriation Fund, taking into account the policies of the host country, provides OFWs with provisions for air tickets, airport assistance, halfway house accommodation, transport assistance, medical assistance, and psychosocial counselling services as pre-existing resources rather than a crisis response fund.[x] The reintegration of the OFWs following their repatriation to the Philippines is facilitated by the National Reintegration Centre for OFWs (NRCO) in collaboration with OWWA. The NRCO allocates a significant budget to provide support for the reintegration of returning migrant workers and their families, focusing on both psychosocial counselling and economic reintegration.[xi]

Finally, the Joint Several Liability Rule is often an overlooked aspect of the structural framework of the Philippines’ welfare framework. The RA 10022 mentions that the liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment or placement agency for any and all claims shall be joint and several,[xii] which places the liability on the corporate officers, individual partners, and directors of the private recruitment agency for any claims or damages in the contract of OFWs.[xiii]

Best Practices and Learnings for Migrant-Sending Countries

Given the socio-economic and demographic differences across countries, it would be impractical to replicate the Philippines’ migration model holistically. Instead, identifying and adopting elements of the model that complement the existing migration governance framework in labour-sending countries, predominantly from the global south, such as India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, is imperative.

Firstly, it is essential to issue a conflict-risk classification mechanism that determines whether to continue or suspend deployment practices in parallel with the DFA’s risk ranking system in the Philippines. Secondly, a dedicated department similar to the DMW in the Philippines, to oversee overseas employment and ensure pre-departure verification of contracts with mandated welfare and insurance provisions, would prove beneficial. Thirdly, a dedicated emergency repatriation fund, pre-positioned and membership-based on the OWWA model, would ensure availability of resources in times of crisis. Fourthly, bilateral labour agreements in compliance with international labour standards should be established, along with enforceable welfare annexes, monitored by necessary institutional mechanisms. Lastly, holistic training for all migrants on essential matters, such as labour laws, welfare programmes, local culture, working environment, and procedures for accessing assistance during emergencies, should be institutionalised to create an inclusive migrant welfare architecture for migrants across all skill levels.

Conclusion

The Philippines Migration Model is not just the result of a single policy intervention, but rather has evolved over the span of 50 years, through continuous institutional learning and adaptation to successive crises. The four-tier risk assessment framework, pre-departure welfare and insurance provisions, evacuation procedures, and pre-emptive repatriation fund are well established with a successful track record. The model demonstrates that sustained remittance flows and effective migration governance are structurally interconnected rather than coincidental. Countries with sizeable overseas labour forces can significantly benefit from the relevant foundational elements of the Philippines model. Similarly, in India, the Overseas (Facilitation and Welfare) Mobility Bill 2025, which is currently at its consultative stage, presents an opportunity to adopt conflict-sensitive migration governance mechanisms similar to some of those in the Philippines.

*****

*Harini R, Research Intern, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal. 

Endnotes 

[i] Philippine Statistics Authority. “Results of the 2024 Overseas Filipino Workers,” Philippine Statistics Authority, December 2025. https://psa.gov.ph/system/files/iesd/SOF-2024-Special-Release.pdf

[ii] Adhikari, Jeevan. “Labour Migration Market and Policy Failure: A Comparative Study of the Philippines and Nepal,” Journal of International Development, 2024. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jid.3865

[iii] International Organization for Migration. “Reimagining Human Mobility,” ReliefWeb, 2020. https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/reimagining-human-mobility

[iv] Ambito, Julyn S. and Banzon, Melissa Suzette L. “Review of Philippine Migration Laws and Regulations: Gains, Gaps, Prospects,” Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper No. 2011-37, 2011. https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1137.pdf

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Asian Development Bank. “Department of Migrant Workers Act, Republic Act No. 11641, Philippines,” Labour and Rights Programme, 2021. https://lpr.adb.org/resource/department-migrant-workers-act-republic-act-no-11641-philippines

[vii] International Organization for Migration. "Crisis Alert System," MICIC Initiative, n.d. https://micicinitiative.iom.int/crisis-alert-system-0

[viii]“List of Deployment Bans on Overseas Filipino Workers,” Wikipedia, accessed June 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deployment_bans_on_Overseas_Filipino_Workers

[ix] “List of Deployment Bans on Overseas Filipino Workers.” Op. cit.

[x] Overseas Workers Welfare Administration. “Repatriation,” OWWA, accessed June 2026. https://owwa.gov.ph/repatriation/

[xi] Adhikari. Op. cit.

[xii] Republic of the Philippines. Republic Act No. 10022, 2010. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2010/ra_10022_2010.html

[xiii] Ambito & Banzon. Op. cit.