04 January 2003

Yusuf,

Mainit na pagbati, sa iyo kaibigan,

We would like to answer the following questions you raised:

3. I wish Migrante will clarify this "clemency plea" supposed to have been sent by Amb. Guinomla to the KSA government and to effect the immediate repatriation of the 16. If there are criminal case against any one of them, 'clemency' is not the right thing to do, justice must be served.

4. I will go back to an issue I raised a few letters back, if there is or are some from the 16 who are facing 'criminal' charges, wouldn't it be fair that they first be brought to trial instead of 'immediately repatriated'. In the event that they are innocent it will be good so that their names and record in this country can be cleared and if they are guilty - for whatever reason, it is only fair that they face the consequence of their actions, because justice must be served.

On the criminal cases:

We do not know from where these supposed "criminal" cases have come from aside from the POLO case officers and the press machinery of the Philippine Embassy.

As far as we know, the stranded OFWs who went on hunger strike were only involved in labor disputes as stated above, unless being a 'runaway' is considered a criminal offense.

Employers usually reports the migrant worker as 'runaway' or worse, file 'criminal' cases in retaliation for charges filed against them in Saudi Labor Courts.

Apparently, the employer of Paulino Buslon and Robert Pacquin filed cases of theft, a case which sprouted after they went on 'hunger strike.' This case was waggled by POLO Case Officers Atty. Ray Banda and Lucman.

On December 23, the Philippine Embassy announced in their Press Release No. 40 entitled entitled "16 OFWs not detained":

"It appears that this leader who is facing an embezzlement charge,…. Moreover, this leader is also being sought by his employer to account for a hefty amount of "embezzled" fund."

A few days later, the supposed case became apparent - a SR100,000 embezzlement case supposedly filed against Engr. Domingo Yalung by his employer was waggled by the same POLO staff (Banda and Lucman) to Yalung's friend on December 31, possibly to trace his whereabouts.

As of yesterday, January 3, the supposed embezzled amount was down to SR 16,000, with a supposed offer from Yalung's employer to return to the company. The supposedly embezzled amount would then be deducted from Yalung's settlement of SR38,000, as Atty. Banda and Lucman explained to a KAMI-SR supporter.

Please take note also that Yalung was already imprisoned for 17 days in October 2003 precisely because of this SR16,000 embezzlement charge (actually an uncollected maintenance account) and was already acquitted by the Saudi Courts.

So we believe any of the 'KAMI-SR 16' has no "criminal" liability to speak of in the first place.

The Philippine Embassy has not only been depriving assistance to these 'stranded OFWs,' they have been creating issues against them to the detriment of their safety and their standing in the labor courts.

"Injustice" has indeed been done, but I am sorry, my friend, it is against the Filipino migrant workers not the Saudis.

On the request for "clemency" or "amnesty"

Firstly, the request for "clemency" or "amnesty" has never been part of MIGRANTE's program of action as an organization or as a sectoral party even, precisely because it would cover up all issues of exploitation and abuse by the employers.

Secondly, we do not want 'stranded' or distressed OFWS to succumb "to another set of indignity - arrest, detention and deportation," as we have stated in our December 22 statement.

Before the 'hunger strike' as far as I can recall, "clemency" as an option was never agreed upon, although there has been discussions on these matter in response to the announced "amnesty" plea by the Philippine Ambassador as some 'stranded OFWs' have been entertaining the possibility for them to be included in the "amnesty" plea.

On the other hand, the "clemency plea" in response to the 'hunger strike' was part of the divisive tactics employed of the Embassy to acquiesce the 'KAMI-SR 16' to relent on their protest as discussed during their meeting on December 15.

During the meeting, the good Ambassador promised to send a letter to Central Region Governor Pr. Salman, but, apparently no letter nor request was sent.

After they were booted out of the Philippine Chancery, the 'KAMI-SR 16' was able to secure a "recommendation for deportation' from the office of the Governor (not "amnesty") in a matter of two days.

As an organization, we have reservations specifically, on securing this recommendation for deportation for the same reason stated above.

MIGRANTE as an organization, in fact, is very confident that the Philippine government can
decisively resolve cases such as these, without (without resorting to deportation) because it was already done in 1998. But these things are already all over us.

Admittedly, the urgency of their repatriation has already overtaken the resolve of the 'KAMI-SR 16'.

So far

As you do, we sincerely hope that this matter be resolved as soon as possible. We are in fact optimistic that the communication lines opened between Labor Attache Manuel Roldan and the 'KAMI-SR 16' and Migrante-KSA since yesterday would lead us all to a peaceful and beneficial conclusion.

We are hoping we have answered your question and we are hoping for your continued support.

MIGRANTE Sectoral Party
Saudi Arabia Chapter

Erratum: Atty. Ray Banda and Mr. Lucman were not POLO Case Officers, they are Philippine Embassy staff handling criminal cases.