THE employment and labor disputes mechanism set up by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) needs to be revised to reflect the unique challenges of overseas employment and the specific labor issues faced by overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), according to an advocacy paper. The paper, “Resolving OFW Grievance Efficiently, Fairly and Justly,” said the System for Efficient and Enforceable Negotiated Agreements (SENA) was meant not only to settle labor disputes, but to foster cooperation and coordination among the conciliating bodies such as the Migrant Workers Office (MWO), the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW), the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). But with the transition of the DMW away from being an agency affiliated with the DOLE, it is essential to reconsider whether the existing rules and procedures, primarily promulgated through the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), still apply, the paper noted. Technically, the DMW, being a separate department, should no longer be bound by the original DOLE procedures, highlighting the need for a tailored SENA model responsive to the unique challenges confronting overseas employment and labor issues encountered by migrant Filipino workers. “Many flaws (in SENA) have been observed which demand immediate attention. Its relevance as a justice mechanism for OFW labor disputes has been negatively affected with the advent of changes in the department of labor which used to implement the SENA program,” the paper said. “Settlement agreements made at MWOs are often disregarded or ignored by the NLRC and regional DOLE offices, undermining the program’s effectiveness,” it added. It noted that settlement documents, especially those marked “seen and noted,” are frequently not considered legally binding or enforceable by adjudication bodies. For instance, the NLRC insists on legally subscribed and sworn statements, which many settlement documents do not meet. “This discrepancy represents a significant gap in the enforcement of the SENA law,” the paper said. For a perfect settlement of claims, they should be fully and legally recognized before a qualified conciliator, both locally and abroad. “To achieve this, the DMW should develop its own SENA framework and issue implementing rules and regulations (IRR) that align with its jurisdiction and specific context of overseas employment,” it said. “This independence would reduce reliance on DOLE programs, which are no longer fully applicable,” the paper said. It proposed that the DMW should issue an enabling order deputizing conciliators as notary publics. “This order would authorize labor attaches and welfare officers to administer oaths, requiring parties to swear under oath to the truthfulness of their statements. Consequently, settlement documents signed under oath would be legally binding and recognized in courts of law, aligning with jurisprudence and reducing disputes over enforceability. Necessarily, the presence of both the employer and the workers should be required in such conciliation meetings,” it said. It proposed that the DMW provide training and capacity-building for conciliators across MWOs, regional offices, and affiliated agencies like OWWA to ensure a uniform understanding and application of the sworn statement process. The move, it said, would also help the Philippine Recruitment Agencies (PRAs) which have been suffering because of the harsh enforcement of the Joint and Solidarity Liability (JSL) principle concerning the disposal of overseas labor cases. In representing their foreign principals, PRAs are often compelled to shoulder exorbitant legal awards, including attorneys’ fees, moral damages, and exemplary damages, the paper said. The NLRC reported that from 2015 to 2024, P4.16 billion, or an average of P415.9 million annually, in legal awards had been granted for labor claims filed by land-based OFWs. Efforts to seek reimbursement of JSL liabilities frequently are unsuccessful, compelling many land-based PRAs to cease operations and face eventual closure. Foreign employers found at fault, meanwhile, are often allowed to continue recruiting Filipino workers under the multiple-agency accreditation system, which allows them to circumvent liabilities. To address the problem, the paper called on the DMW to fully enforce the provision of Section 7 of Republic Act 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act 8042 (paragraph 7) which automatically disqualifies a foreign employer or principal “from participating in the Philippine Overseas Employment Program and from recruiting and hiring Filipino workers until and unless it fully satisfies the judgment award.” “Implementing this provision would serve as a crucial measure to uphold accountability among foreign employers and prevent unjust practices,” it said. Such an approach also ensures “justice and promotes the meaningful participation of the private sector in the overseas employment program, an achievement that the industry rightfully deserves,” the paper said.