Compiled by John Ferris, former Philippines Honorary Consul in Ireland
A selection of news and information for OFW's - although half the emphasis will be pertinent for Filipinos in Ireland and the UK, the other half is of interest to all Filipinos working and living abroad.
A number of FilAms dream of running for office in the Philippines while retaining their U.S. citizenship. "Namamangka sa dalawang ilog," as they say it in Tagalog.
In the early ‘90s, I had breakfast at the Manila Hotel with my fraternity brother, Leonardo B. Perez, then a member of Congress from Nueva Vizcaya. I wrote on a napkin a proposed dual citizenship bill titled: "Once a Filipino, always a Filipino." The bill simply read:
"A natural-born Filipino citizen shall not lose his citizenship by the fact that he is naturalized as a citizen under the laws of another country."
"Can you sponsor this bill, brod?" I asked him.
"Yes, but you better have Joe de Venecia as the main sponsor. Whatever Joe wants, Joe gets." Joe was the powerful speaker of the House. I went to his Dasmarinas Village home.
"Maganda ito," exclaimed Joe. "You better take care of this. It will help you," he told Congressman Manny Sanchez who was nearby. Manny, also my fraternity brod, was the congressman of Rizal but the Sumulongs were contesting his election on the ground that he was a U.S. citizen.
Joe filed my bill exactly as I wrote it. Unfortunately, the anti-balikbayan members of Congress torpedoed the bill. One of them expressed concern that I might be running against them. "I do not have any ill gotten wealth to finance a political campaign," I told them.
Subsequently, I had breakfast with Manny Villar at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. We were introduced by a mutual friend, Atty. Bert Bravo, the multi-millionaire businessman of U-Bix fame. I asked Manny to re-sponsor my dual citizenship bill. He said that the political climate was not good because there was a strong anti-balikbayan sentiment in Congress who believed that FilAms want to have the best of both worlds. "Wait 'til I am President," he remarked, winking.
ADVANTAGES OF MY DUAL CITIZENSHIP BILL
Under my bill, a natural-born Filipino did not have to do anything to retain his Filipino citizenship. As a full-fledged Filipino, he could do anything any Filipino citizen could.
The new dual citizenship bill enacted by Congress is a farce. I have nothing to do with it. A former Filipino citizen must take an oath of allegiance to the Philippines and pay a fee to reacquire Philippine citizenship.
EFFECT OF OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRY
If you took the oath of allegiance to the Philippines, a foreign country in the eyes of U.S. law, what will you write on your U.S. passport application when it asks you whether you have ever taken an oath of allegiance to a foreign country? If you say "yes," you will probably be denied a passport. If you say "no," you will be making a false statement under oath. Under my dual citizenship bill, you did not have this problem because it did not require you to take an oath of allegiance to the Philippines.
NECESSITY OF RELINQUISHING U.S. CITIZENSHIP TO RUN FOR OFFICE
So, you are now a Filipino citizen again, while retaining your U.S. citizenship. Can you now run for public office in the Philippines? After all, Filipino citizens can run for public office.
No. You must relinquish your U.S. citizenship, first. Why? Because that is what the new dual citizenship law requires. A dual citizen is not really a genuine Filipino citizen because he or she does not have equal rights as a Filipino citizen. The dual citizen must relinquish his or her U.S. citizenship in a written form, under oath, and filed with the proper Philippine government office. But if you do that, you will have lost your U.S. citizenship.
According to the Supreme Court, in Guzman v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180048, June 19, 2009:
"Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior to or simultaneous to the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections."
END OF ARTICLE
Bottom of Form
FOLLOWING PART TWO OF OUR DIARY OF DECEMBER 2011 WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO ELABORATE ON QUESTION 1 BELOW:
Question 1:
I am a former natural-born Philippine citizen but have become a naturalized Irish citizen. Am I still allowed to own land in the Philippines ?
Answer 1: Yes. Any natural-born Philippine citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship may still own private land in the Philippines up to a maximum area of 5,000 square meters of urban land, or in the case of rural land three hectacres. In the case of married couples, the total area that both couples are allowed to purchase should not exceed the maximum area mentioned above.
LAND OWNERSHIP BY FILIPINOS OVERSEAS ACCORDING TO THE DFA's "COMMISSION FOR FILIPINOS OVERSEAS" HANDBOOK ISSUED JUNE 2010, and also according the to Philippine Consulate General Frankfurt (Last Updated (Sunday, 03 October 2010 11:20).
Acquisition through Inheritance
There is no limit to the amount of land that a former Philippine citizen can acquire through inheritance. The constitutional right to acquire land through hereditary succession is not limited by location, size, or number of lots.
Acquisition through other Means (Purchase, Donation)
Under Batas Pambansa no. 185 (March 1982), a natural-born Filipino who has lost his/her Philippine citizenship may acquire private urban or rural land in RP for residential purposes. The maximum limits are as follows: urban land - 1,000 sq.m; rural land - 1 hectare.
Meanwhile, under the Foreign Investment Act of 1991 (as amended by RA 8179 of March 1996), a natural-born Filipino who has lost his/her Philippine citizenship may acquire private or rural land in RP for business or other purposes. The maximum limits are as follows: urban land - 5,000 sq.m; rural land - 3 hectares. "Business and other purposes" includes leasing of land but excludes buy-and-sell activities.
» Only urban land OR rural land can be acquired under each law, not a combination of both types of land.
» If the former Philippine citizen already owns urban or rural lands for residential/business or other purposes, he may still acquire additional for the same purpose which when added to those he/she already owns will not exceed the prescribed limit.
» A maximum of two lots may be purchased under each law. These must be situated in different municipalities or cities.
» The size limitations apply jointly to married couples who are both former Philippine citizens. This means that the combined total of land they can acquire under BP 185 and the FIA must be within the prescribed limits.
What is a Transferee ?
The acquisition or transfer of private land refers to either voluntary or
involuntary sale, devise or donation. Involuntary sale includes sales
on tax delinquency, foreclosures, and executions of judgment.
Qualifications of Former Filipinos
Both of the above mentioned land laws define former Filipinos as citizens of the Philippines from
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship, who lost said Philippine citizenship, and who
have the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws.
Natural-Born Filipinos Who Have Become Naturalized Citizens Of Another
Country
Under Republic Act 4376, a law amending the Philippine Immigration
Act of 1940, a natural-born Filipino who has become a naturalized
citizen of another country and is returning to the Philippines for
permanent residence, including his/her spouse and minor unmarried
children, shall be considered non-quota immigrants for purposes of
entering the Philippines.
To apply for a non-quota immigrant visa, the applicant must submit
documents to establish that he/she:
1. was previously a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
2. was naturalized in a foreign country
3. is not afflicted with any dangerous, contagious, or loathsome
disease
4. has no derogatory information against him/her from any local
or international law enforcement agency
5. is financially capable of supporting himself/herself so that
he/she will not become a public charge while residing
permanently in the Philippines
6. has not been institutionalized for any mental disability
7. was allowed lawful entry by immigration authorities with a
valid admission status
8. has not violated the terms and conditions of his/her admission
status
9. intends to reside permanently in the Philippines
Editorial Comment: The above article means that Filipinos in Ireland who acquire Irish Citizenship and do not go forward to the Philippine embassy to take an Oath of allegiance, don't have to worry because:-
(1) they qualify to own lands in the above mentioned quantities.
(2) they can travel to the Philippines and bring their families, and remain there for up to a year without obtaining a Philippine visa.
(3) they can retire and live there without swearing an Oath of allegiance at the Philippine embassy.
The COMMISSION ON FILIPINOS OVERSEAS (CFO) from which the information comes is an agency under the Office of the President which was established on 16 June 1980 through
Batas Pambansa (Republic Act) 79, to strengthen ties with Filipinos overseas and promote their interests in the Philippines and abroad.
FUNCTIONS OF CFO
B.P. 79 mandates CFO to:
Provide advice and assistance to the President and the Congress of the Philippines in the formulation of policies concerning or affecting Filipinos overseas;
10,440 FILIPINOS CURRENTLY REGISTERED WITH GNIB IN 2011.
(this is 8% OF NON-EU. CHILDREN UNDER 16 ARE NOT INCLUDED).
INDIAMS ARE THE HIGHEST WITH 14,355 REGISTERED.
IMMIGRATION MINISTER ALAN SHATTER ISSUE FIGURES FOR 2011 ON 3RD January 2012.
Key Figures for 2011
Overall in 2011, approximately 164,000 new applications (i.e. visa, residence, protection and citizenship) were received by Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS); decisions were issued by INIS in almost 178,000 cases (a proportion of decisions issued relate to applications submitted in previous years); and over 111,000 new or renewed registrations of permission to remain in the State were issued by the Garda National Immigration Bureau.
Registrations
All Non-EEA nationals remaining in the State for longer than 90 days are required to register with the Garda National Immigration Bureau.
The provisional 2011 year end estimate of non-EEA nationals with permission to remain in the State is approximately 130,500. This compares with 132,200 at the end of 2010 and 134,000 in 2009 when registrations of non-EEA nationals were at their highest. The majority of persons with permission to remain in the State are here for work or study purposes.
The current top 6 registered nationalities which account for over 50% of all persons registered are India (11%), China (9%), Brazil (9%), Nigeria (9%), Philippines (8%) and USA (7%).
Visas
Provisional figures indicate that approximately 83,000 entry visa applications were processed in 2011, an increase of 8% on 2010. The approval rate for entry visa applications was 91%. The top 5 nationalities applying for visas in 2011 were India (17%), Russia (14%), China (12%), Turkey (5%) and Saudi Arabia (5%).
Naturalisation/citizenship
In 2011, major reforms were introduced to the processing of citizenship applications aimed at tackling the backlog of applications that had arisen due to the huge increase in the volume of naturalisation applications in recent years - from 1,000 applications in the year 2000 to 25,671 in 2010, an almost 25-fold increase in the 10 year period.
The new measures were also introduced with the aim of dealing with almost all new citizenship applications within 6 months.
These measures have resulted in a significant increase in the number of cases decided with double the volume of valid applications being decided in 2011, some 16,000, compared to 2010 when fewer than 8,000 were decided.
By late spring/early summer of 2012 it is anticipated that all standard applications, i.e. non complex cases accounting for 70% of all applications, will be completed within 6 months.
Income Generated from Fees
In 2011, the fee income generated from visa charges, re-entry fees, registration fees, naturalisation and long-term residency and other fees amounted to €29m.
Students
The New Student Immigration Regime came into operation from 1 January 2011 and is designed to reform the student immigration regime in a manner that is better integrated with Ireland's immigration policy generally while providing a stronger regulatory framework for the sustainable development of the international education sector. Key measures introduced include maximum periods of residence in the State on foot of a student permission and a differentiated approach as between "Degree Programme" courses and those at the "Language or Non Degree Programme" level.
The number of non-EEA national students registered to study in the State is approximately 32,500 or 25% of the total number of non-EEA nationals with permission to remain in the State.
Broken down by education sector, 37% of students are pursuing Higher Education (Degree Programme) study, 29% are taking language courses, 23 % further education (non Degree) courses and 11% other (e.g. accountancy, secondary school).
Asylum
The provisional figures for 2011 indicate that 1,250 new applications for asylum were submitted. The equivalent figure for 2010 was 1,939. The comparative figure in 2002, when the use of the asylum system by economic migrants to enter the state was at its peak, was 11,600. Provisional figures for end 2011 indicate that there were approximately 5,400 persons seeking international protection accommodated in direct provision centres in the State.
Deportations/Removals
3,700 were refused entry at ports of entry, and 300 persons were deported/removed from the State in 2011.
In addition, 280 failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants were deported from the State in 2011. The top 5 nationalities deported were Nigeria, South Africa, Pakistan, Moldova and Georgia. A total of 111 persons were deported on charter flights and 169 on scheduled commercial aircraft. In 2011, Ireland participated in 7 chartered deportation flights all of which were organised in conjunction with EU agency FRONTEX which coordinates removals throughout the EU.
A further 144 asylum seekers were transferred to the EU member state in which they first applied for asylum under the Dublin Regulation.
In addition a further 41 EU nationals were returned to their countries of origin on foot of an EU Removal Order.
Voluntary Returns
Rather than be issued with a deportation order, a total of 475 persons chose to return home voluntarily in 2011. Of that number, 402 were assisted to return by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The top 5 nationalities of returnees were Brazil, Moldova, Nigeria, Georgia and Mongolia.
COMPARING THE ABOVE MENTIONED 2011 FIGURES WITH THE STATISTICS AVAILABLE IN 2006 (No statistics available since 2006.
10,779..................................... registrations in 2006. (AS COMPARED WITH 10,440 IN 2011)
990 ................................... adults registered under the IBC in 2005 (and didn't reregister in 2006)
700 ......................babies born in Ireland prior to 2005 (estimate) based on 235 filipino babies born in Dublin
area in 2003.
1,800 ............................... nurses and other skilled workers who registered in 2005 who don't need to register
till 2007
.
600 .................................. of their spouses who registered at same time and won't register again for two years
in 2007.
2,000................................ child dependents under 16. estimated (3,000 children applied at the Irish
Consulate in Manila for visas between 2001 and now. It's not known
how many were granted, or how many are reapplications).
_______
16,869 Total number of Filipinos estimated to be in Ireland in 2006.
inheritance tax and law in the Philippines.
Foreign wills are allowed in the Philippines
The will of a foreigner that is proven and allowed in a foreign country, in accordance with the laws of that country, may be allowed, filed and recorded by the Philippine courts. A copy of the will and the decree of allowance issued by the proper authorities in the foreign country, must be duly authenticated, and filed with a petition for allowance before the Philippine courts. The due execution of the will and the testamentary capacity of the decedent need not be proven again. After hearing, the Philippine court decides whether the will may be allowed in the Philippines.
(Editorial Comment: when Consular Clinics resume again in the Capel St. area in early 2012 - after an absence of two and a half years - we will again be able to compose and issue "last wills and testaments" for Filipino free of charge, just like before).
Private land in Philippines cannot be bequeathed to a foreigner.
If a foreign decedent owns private land in the Philippines, then current Philippine law considers as void any provision in the foreigner's will bequeathing the land to another foreigner. This is due to the Philippine law which limits ownership of private land in the Philippines to the following:
Filipino citizens;
Corporations or associations - at least 60% of the capital must be owned by Filipino citizens;
Natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship, subject to certain limitations;
Non-Filipino citizens, who can inherit land by hereditary or intestate succession (without a will) but not by testamentary succession (with a will).
Although ownership of private land in the Philippines is currently subject to the above nationality restrictions, foreigners are at liberty to buy condominium units, and most condominium projects in the Philippines are structured so that that foreigners can own such units; consequently condominiums may be inherited by foreigners through testamentary or intestate succession.
There is a possibility that foreign ownership restrictions in the Philippines may be removed in the future if the Constitution is changed, which is the controversial plan of the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In the absence of a will, Philippine law designates intestate heirs.
The order of hereditary or intestate succession, if the deceased was a legitimate child, is as follows:
o Legitimate children or descendants;
o Legitimate parents or ascendants;
o Illegitimate children or descendants;
o Surviving spouse;
o Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces;
o Other collateral relatives within the fifth degree; and,
o The State.
The order of hereditary or intestate succession, if the deceased was an illegitimate child, is as follows:
o Legitimate children or descendants;
o Illegitimate children or descendants;
o Illegitimate parents (other ascendants are excluded);
o Surviving spouse;
o Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces; and,
o The State.
The surviving spouse and the illegitimate children or descendants of the deceased are considered as "concurring compulsory heirs" and they succeed, as a general rule, together with the primary or secondary heirs.
Gifts during the lifetime of the owner are advances from the inheritance
Philippine law considers all property given during the lifetime of the deceased as advances from his/her estate. Thus, any property which the deceased gave or donated to other persons before death must be returned to his/her estate. This is known as collation. The actual gifts are not brought to collation, but only their value at the time they were given.
The purpose of collation is to estimate the value of the legitime of compulsory heirs and the amount of the free portion. Philippine rules of evidence apply, so that testimonial or documentary proof of the value of each gift must be presented to the court. There is no limit, in time or size, to the gifts considered. Even if the gifts were made before the compulsory heirs were born, they are collated. However, in practice, it is difficult to prove the value of small gifts, and gifts made a long time ago may be forgotten. Normally, collation only includes real estate (i.e. land, buildings, condominium units, apartments) and valuable personal possessions (e.g. jewelry, cars, stocks, shares, club memberships) for which documentary proof or evidence can be presented to the court.
The values of gifts to compulsory heirs are chargeable against (i.e. deducted from) their legitime, except if the donor has expressed that "collation shall not take place" which means that the values of the gifts are deducted from the free portion. Gifts to persons who are not compulsory heirs are always chargeable against the free portion. If the total value of the gifts exceeds the free portion, then they are considered inofficious, in which case, the excess must be returned to the compulsory heirs. The law contemplates the return of property of the same nature, class and quality, as far as possible.
Ownership of real estate in the Philippines is determined by the Torrens title.
One of the cardinal principles in the Philippines is the indefeasibility of the Torrens Title to determine the ownership of real property. The registered owner indicated on the Torrens Title, and the incidents annotated therein, generally defeat any other claim, or claimant, not so registered. The Torrens Title system is quite reliable and has been used effectively to defeat the claims of some unscrupulous Filipinos who attempt to acquire other people's real estate in the Philippines by means of spurious or fake titles. A foreigner who purchases or inherits real property in the Philippines is therefore strongly advised to avoid such problems by procuring the services of a local lawyer to ensure that his/her name is registered as the legal owner on the Torrens Title.
Philippine law stipulates a reserved portion for compulsory heirs
Certain parts of the estate of a deceased Filipino citizen cannot be freely disposed of because Philippines law reserves them for the "compulsory heirs". The same reservation does not necessarily apply to foreigners who are governed by their national inheritance laws. However if the Philippines court accepts a renvoi, then the reserved portions, "reserves" or "legitimes" established in Philippine law become applicable to foreigners.
Concurring - surviving spouse; illegitimate children and/or descendants
"Primary compulsory heirs" are preferred over secondary heirs, who receive only in default of the primary. "Concurring compulsory heirs" generally succeed as compulsory heirs, together with primary or secondary heirs.
Depending on the surviving heirs called to the succession, the law reserves at least one half of the deceased's hereditary estate for distribution to the heirs. The hereditary estate is the difference between the assets and the liabilities of the deceased. If a property is conjugally-owned by spouses, or co-owned by several parties, then only that portion of the property belonging to the deceased forms part of the hereditary estate.
The Philippine Civil Code regarding "reserves" or "legitimes" provides that
One legitimate child is entitled to ½ of the hereditary estate. Two or more legitimate children are entitled to distribute ½ of the hereditary estate equally among themselves.
The surviving spouse is entitled to ¼ of the hereditary estate if there is only one legitimate child. With 2 or more legitimate children, the surviving spouse is entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of a legitimate child. The legitime of the surviving spouse is taken from the free portion of the hereditary estate.
The legitime of illegitimate children are taken from the free portion of the hereditary estate, provided that they do not exceed the free portion. The Family Code of the Philippines provides that the legitime of each illegitimate child consists of ½ of that of a legitimate child.
In the absence of legitimate children and descendants, the legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants consists of ½ of the hereditary estate of their children and descendants. The testator may freely dispose of the other half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and the surviving spouse.
For example, if a decedent is survived by his wife and four legitimate children, ½ of his hereditary estate is reserved equally between the children (1/8 each) whilst the wife takes the same share as one legitimate child i.e. 1/8. This leaves 3/8 of the estate which can be freely disposed of in accordance with his will.
The free portion of a hereditary estate can be freely willed to any person or class of person with the capacity to succeed under the Civil Code, even if that person is already a compulsory heir, with a prescribed legitime.
There may be instances where no free portion is left to distribute. For example, if there is one legitimate child, a surviving spouse and two illegitimate children, the legitimate child gets ½ of the hereditary estate, the surviving spouse gets ¼ and the two legitimate children share equally the remaining ¼ portion, so there is no free portion
The Global Property Guide looks at inheritance from two angles:taxation, and what inheritance laws apply to foreigners leaving property in Philippines: what restrictions there are and whether making a will is advisable.
INHERITANCE TAX
How high are inheritance taxes in Philippines?
ESTATE TAX
Nonresident foreigners pay estate tax only on property located in the Philippines. The taxable inheritance is arrived at after deducting all expenses, losses, debts, and taxes related to the property (all proportionate to the ratio of the Philippine gross estate to his total estate) as well as the surviving spouse's net share. Estate tax is levied at progressive rates.
Citizens and resident foreigners are allowed the following deductions, aside from the expenses and taxes related to the property as well as the surviving spouse's share, before arriving at the taxable estate:
PHP1 million (US$23,103) standard deduction,
PHP1 million (US$23,103) for the family home,
PHP200,000 (US$4,621) for funeral expenses, and
PHP500,000 (US$11,551) for medical expenses during one whole year before the testator's death.
The law of the foreigner's nationality governs inheritance in the Philippines.
Philippine inheritance law is governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines, with the Rules of Court completing the procedural framework.
The general principle in the Philippines is that substantive issues of inheritance, such as the order of succession, amounts of successional rights, validity of testamentary dispositions, capacity to inherit, absence of a will, compulsory heirs, and reserved and free portions are primarily assessed according to the national laws (or, in certain cases, domiciliary laws) of deceased foreigners.
The national or domiciliary laws of the deceased foreigner apply regardless of the nature or location of the property in question.
It is possible that the inheritance issues of some foreigners who own property in the Philippines might become subject to renvoi (i.e. the issues are referred back to the Philippines). Situations in which renvoi may be anticipated include:
If the property in question is located in the Philippines, and the foreigner's national law states that the applicable legislation for inheritance issues is the law of the country where the property is located (lex situs).
If the foreigner's national law states that the applicable legislation is that of the foreigner's domicile, and the domicile of the foreigner, as defined by his/her national law, is the Philippines.
If the foreigner's national or domiciliary laws refer inheritance issues back to the Philippines, even though the Philippines is not the foreigner's domicile or country of residence.
In the above cases, the Philippines legal system, as ruled by the Supreme Court, has no alternative but to accept the renvoi, and apply the Philippines Civil Code, thereby avoiding conflicts with the national or domiciliary laws of the deceased foreigner.
IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR MANY FILIPINO FAMILIES.
Immigration Council of Ireland (ICI) presentation to Dail Oireachtas Committee on domestic violence issues Oct 2011.
ICI Senior Solicitor Catherine Cosgrave, made a presentation on October 5th 2011 to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality hearing on domestic violence. The ICI submission was informed by the experiences of migrant women accessing the ICI's information and legal services and highlights the specific issues arising for migrant women with dependent residence status in terms of access to refuge accommodation and other social protection.
Unlike most other countries, Irish immigration law does not currently contain a 'domestic violence concession' providing an entitlement to the granting of an independent residence permit to an individual who is resident in Ireland on the basis of a family relationship and has an abusive partner.
The ICI referred the Joint Committee to the provisions of the European Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, as well as other European Directives, and called on the Government to amend the draft Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 and introduce statutory provisions governing family reunification which should outline the conditions to be fulfilled for remaining in the State following changes in circumstances, such as separation due to domestic violence. Pending the enactment of the legislation, the ICI urges the INIS to publish administrative policy guidelines for the consideration of applications in this situation.
Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality Debate
Chairman:I invite Ms Catherine Cosgrave to make a submission on behalf of the Immigrant Council of Ireland.
Ms Catherine Cosgrave:I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. We welcome this opportunity to make a presentation to the joint committee and believe that the focus on the issue of domestic violence is timely in light of the recent figures published by Safe Ireland and the recent adoption of the Council of Europe convention on combating and preventing domestic violence and violence against women in general. It was highlighted this morning that Ireland has not yet signed the convention.
The Immigrant Council of Ireland, ICI, was established in 2001 to provide an innovative response to migrants and their family members living in Ireland. We are unique in the NGO sector dealing with migrants' rights, operate as an independent law centre and have done since 2006. The ICI responds annually to approximately 10,000 queries from individuals, organisations and other legal practitioners throughout the country. Within our legal support unit, we prioritise support for migrants who have experienced human rights abuses in Ireland. We focus in particular on vulnerable migrants and have a specialist support service for particular categories, including women who have been trafficked to Ireland for the purposes of sexual exploitation, migrant women experiencing domestic violence and unaccompanied migrants and migrant children and young adults, specifically those who are not in the asylum process.
In responding to individuals, we accept individuals presenting directly to our services as well as referrals from other external organisations such as the organisations represented here today but also from other statutory agencies, including the HSE and other health care professions, particularly social workers.
I should highlight that we have limited capacity to respond to all the queries that we receive. We currently employ two solicitors, but one is on maternity leave, which obviously limits the volume of work we can respond to, specifically on the issue of domestic violence, the issue before the committee.
We do not have the full figures to date, but in the year to date, we estimate we have responded to 100 calls directly to our own services and 18 of these cases have been referred for support to the legal services unit. Our remit is in the area of domestic violence and migrant women.
We would like to highlight for the committee that the number of migrant women accessing domestic violence support services has increased dramatically in the past ten years. At any one time it is estimated that approximately 30% to 40% of women accessing refuge accommodation or seeking to access refuge accommodation or other outreach services in Ireland are migrant women.
It has been clearly outlined by my colleagues, particularly from Safe Ireland and Women's Aid, that it can be very difficult for all women to access support services but there are particular difficulties for migrant women. I will focus specifically on those difficulties and, in particular, within the remit of this committee, on the issue of family reunification legislation, or absence of it. I will not focus so much on the habitual residence condition because colleagues have looked at that issue already but there is some information in the written submission provided to the committee. (Editorial comment: habitual residence in this context means that migrants should be resident in Irelandfor two years before they can have access to State support services).
I wish to highlight briefly that in contrast with most other jurisdictions, currently Irish immigration legislation does not provide any statutory right for family reunification for Irish citizens or legally resident foreign nationals except for refugees and the family members of EU citizens. That is specifically regulated by way of the freedom of movement or citizenship directive which we are obliged to follow and which was transposed into Irish law by way of statutory instruments in 2006 and 2008.
In addition to the absence of immigration legislation in regard to family reunification, there is no provision in Irish statute law for the granting of an automatic independent residence permit to a family member who may have been permitted to enter Ireland under administrative rules and discretionary arrangements. Irish statutory law or the administrative arrangements do not contain a domestic violence concession, as it is sometimes referred to in other jurisdictions, providing an entitlement to remain in the State if one is the victim of an abusive relationship.
I acknowledge - and it would be remiss of me not to do so - that the Minister for Justice and Equality in many cases responds humanely and exercises discretion to grant residence permits to women who are leaving abusive relationships, specifically migrant women. We remain concerned that it is not based on any specific right on the part of a migrant woman concerned and that it is only done on an individual case by case basis at the absolute discretion of the Minister or immigration officers, acting on his behalf and it is also done in the absence of any clear administrative guidelines.
Chairman:Sorry, I have to interrupt the meeting as a vote has been called in the House.
Sitting suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.
Chairman:We will resume and allow Ms Cosgrave complete her statement. I apologise for the delay but it is due to how the House is ordered and is out of our control.
Ms Catherine Cosgrave:I acknowledge that the Minister for Justice and Equality has responded humanely in many cases and has exercised discretion to grant independent residence permits to individuals escaping abusive relationships. The difficulty is that this is not based on any specific right or entitlement provided, either by way of legislation or by way of administrative policy. It is done case by case at the discretion of the Minister or an immigration officer acting on behalf of the Minister. It is also done in the absence of any clear administrative guidelines.
For example, there is no information published by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, explaining that it is possible for an individual to apply for an independent residence permit in the event of relationship breakdown as a result of domestic violence. Rather, what one finds on the www.inis.gov.ie website is information to the contrary. It explicitly sets out, as noted in my written submission, that if a person is resident on the basis of marriage to an Irish national, there is no right of retention of residence in the event of separation or divorce.
Similarly, the information in respect of those who may be in a de facto relationship with an Irish or other non-EEA national states explicitly that there is no right of retention of residence in the event of separation. This contrasts with what happens in practice case by case where representation may be made. As a result of the information currently published on the INIS website, it has come to our attention that in a number of cases women have been advised to apply for asylum, although that may not necessarily be relevant to their circumstances.
Consequently, it is extremely difficult for me as a legal practitioner to advise women as to their entitlement to apply for the permit (meaning permission to stay; not the work permit) or on how they will be treated in the process. Our experience case by case is that there has been a humane response.
In the absence of a clearly stated remedy, however, whether that is on an administrative or legislative basis, women can be reluctant to take that step initially. Also, it may well be that they will only take that step after a period of time. For example, in one case, I engaged with a woman for approximately 12 months before she was in a position to take the step and apply.
I would like to highlight the fact that last year the Health Service Authority (HSE) published guidelines for its social workers advising them that their first response should not be to advise a woman to leave the home because of the crisis that can emerge when a woman seeks to exit the abusive relationship.
Migrant women, in particular, face an additional difficulty. In the absence of a clearly stated remedy regarding their residence status and in light of the difficulties that have been outlined by Women's Aid and Safe Ireland today in terms of access to refuge, it is particularly difficult to advise a migrant woman at what point she should make an application. It is my experience that even in cases where an application is looked on positively and in favour of a woman to grant a permit, the response in dealing with those applications can vary.
For example, in one case, there was a very positive response within a period of 24 hours. However, the two cases I outlined in my written submission demonstrate that for one it took a period of four months to process the application and for the other it took a period in excess of two years. In that context, it is very difficult to advise a migrant woman on the response that will be made to their application or what proofs of domestic violence will be required. In particular, it is difficult to advise on whether it is a requirement for them to have left their home to seek an independent residence permit. It is particularly difficult to advise women that they need to leave their home. They may have a safety order or a barring order, but if they cannot be guaranteed access to a refuge or any form of short-term social support, it is a difficult situation.
As I mentioned at the outset, this is in stark contrast with the position in other jurisdictions. I will draw the committee's attention to the rules introduced in the United Kingdom in 1999 by way of a concession and then formally in 2002 by way of an immigration rule. There is specific provision within these immigration rules that a woman who has been granted residence in the United Kingdom on the basis of a family relationship is entitled to an independent residence permit on leaving that relationship as a result of abuse.
The rules provide for specific proofs to be provided. Only one form of documentary evidence is required if there is a court order, but two proofs of documentary evidence are required in the absence of a court order. These can be testimony from a social worker, a refuge support, some other service provider or medical reports where the woman has been to a GP or admitted to hospital.
In addition to the specific examples within the immigration rules in the United Kingdom, it is internationally recognised that states should provide an entitlement to an independent or autonomous residence permit in these circumstances. I will give some examples. Although we are not a signatory to the recently adopted Council of Europe convention in May of this year, Article 13 paragraph 2 of that convention deals with the obligations of signatory states to the convention. We have domestic obligations to grant independent residence permits to victims in this instance but only in the case of third-country family members who are family of EU citizens.
(Editorial comment: that means a Filipina who is married to a Polish citizen or one of the 25 or so members of the EU, but excluding Ireland).
This does not extend, for example, to family members of Irish citizens. This is an anomaly of reverse discrimination which is found in the 2004 citizenship or free movement directive, as it is known. This right is internationally recognised within the member states of the European Union by way of the family reunification directive but Ireland does not participate in this directive. However, it is instructive that this right has been recognised at member state level as being the bare minimum and that there should be no loss of residence for a third-country family member who has been admitted to the State by way of family reunification as found in Article 15.3 of the 2003 directive.
A number of recommendations are contained in the written submission to the committee. I wish to highlight in particular that since the immigration residence and protection legislation was debated and introduced, the Immigrant Council of Ireland has been calling for almost ten years for a statutory provision for the granting of an independent or autonomous residency permit as this would bring the law in this jurisdiction into line with what is now the recognised international position. In our view, this could be done by way of comprehensive rules regarding family reunification. Members of the committee may be aware that the current draft 2010 Bill contains no provisions except for refugee family reunification. There is no provision for the introduction of family reunification for Irish nationals or third-country nationals living in Ireland and, similarly, there is no stand-alone provision to deal with this independent residence permit.
It has been suggested throughout the period of time that the legislation has been pending that family reunification may well be dealt with by way of secondary regulations introduced to complement the primary legislation but there has been no indication whether these regulations are being drafted or when they might be introduced. We would welcome the introduction of primary legislation and specifically the opportunity to address the very urgent needs of migrant women experiencing domestic violence.A number of what could be termed cut and paste provisions from international directives could be used in this instance.
Pending the introduction of the legislation the Immigrant Council of Ireland advises that this could be done very easily in the interim by way of administrative policies and procedures. In particular, I suggest an amendment to the information provided on the INIS website to advise that it is possible to apply for a remedy in this specific instance and to give some guidance as to what proofs or evidence would be required to progress an application. This is our primary recommendation and I will not go into detail on the other recommendations.
Chairman:I thank Ms Cosgrave. The Bill is due for publication before the end of the year and there will be at least 300 Government amendments to it.
Senator Ivana Bacik:I must leave for a vote in the Seanad.
Deputy Jonathan O'Brien:There may be an opportunity on Committee Stage of the Immigration Bill to address some of the issues but more comprehensive legislation on domestic violence may be required. I am aware that the Minister has highlighted that this is an issue he will examine, and it is hoped we can make some movement on it.
It is interesting that a number of issues ran through all the presentations, which were helpful and informative, but I hope that the debate does not end here but remains on the agenda because I am aware from speaking to other members of the committee that it is a problem all members are determined to try to tackle during this Dáil term and make some progress on. (The Dail Term will last five years).
Chairman:I asked a question earlier on the issue of prevention. I am aware that we must deal with perpetrators who commit crime and that there is a great deal of co-ordination to be done but it was interesting to hear one of the contributors state that we are not out of line with other countries regarding domestic violence. Most countries appear to be at the same level in that regard but if the representatives have any suggestions as to the reason this is happening we would be grateful to receive them. There was an interesting talk this morning about the need for a cultural shift in our attitude to violence generally. It is important also to bear that in mind. Do the representatives wish to make closing remarks?
Ms Catherine Cosgrave:I thank the committee for the opportunity to attend.
Chairman:We will certainly follow that up with the Minister. Today's presentations will form a report which will go to the Minister and the Department and we will ask them for a response on it.
Chairman:I thank everybody who attended today for their contributions. The committee recognises the extremely important work carried out by all the organisations.
In the first and second parts of our December Filipino Diary we dealt with Dual Nationality for Filipinos. It appears that the only UK Filipino on-line newsletter has picked it up and published it as it appears it may effect Filipinos living in the UK also. The on-one newsletter is www.balitapinoy.net
The following is important, not just to Filipinos in Ireland, but all OFW's who have or are contemplating having dual citizenship.
It is obvious that Filipinos do not have the same freedom of movement as that of (for example) US, Canadian or EU passport holders. So a lot do take those all-important passports for visa-free travel and other benefits.
However, as reported below, there are pitfalls. John Ferris, the former honorary Philippine consul in Ireland edits his monthly Dublin Filipino diary which is mainly of interest to those in Ireland as well as the UK. This particular one should be required reading for all those with a second passport or are getting one.
It is rather heavy going but we make no apologies for that. It is an extremely important issue, especially in respect of property rights and land ownership.
If any legal or property experts spot any errors, please let us know, either by the comment box at the bottom or by clicking the "Have you been affected" link underneath.
This post was written by Charles Kelly on December 28, 2011 Posted Under: News
The Common Travel Area between the Irish Republic and the UK is only for the benefit of Irish and British people, a High Court judge said last week.
Foreign tourists who leave the Republic for a day trip to Northern Ireland, without a passport or visa to enter the UK could, under Irish immigration laws, be refused permission to re-enter the Republic, the judge warned.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said in the High Court that this could apply to foreign nationals who had been given permission to stay in Ireland and who innocently crossed Northern Ireland on their way to Donegal.
He said it was a consequence of immigration laws that permission to enter and stay in Ireland automatically lapsed once a person left. On re-entry they would have to seek a new "permission to land or be in the State".
Mr Justice Hogan said foreign nationals often took day trips to Northern Ireland. Many left their travel documents in the Republic, wrongly believing they did not need them because the Common Travel Area between the Republic and the UK was for the benefit of all.
"The Common Travel Area is only for the benefit of Irish citizens and British nationals," Mr Justice Hogan said in a ruling on an application by a Bolivian couple, Roberth Moreno Choma (25) and Daniella Fernandez Pacheco (22), who travelled to Northern Ireland and Scotland on their way to a three- day break in London.
Mr Justice Hogan said it was probably fair to say they had made an innocent mistake.
When they first arrived in Dublin, immigration authorities granted them permission to stay in the State for a month.
The UK authorities stopped them coming off the ferry at Cairnryan last weekend and they face deportation back to Bolivia. Noticing their passports had been stamped by the Irish authorities up to January 16th, the UK authorities asked if they would be allowed back into the Republic, but they were refused entry.
The judge said he would hand down a written judgment. The couple's solicitor, Derek Stewart, said that as a result of the judgment, he was hopeful the couple may get permission to re-enter Ireland. Source: Irish Times
Hi, I'm an Irish citizen, but my father was born in the Philippines. He is now an Irish citizen too, as he is living in Ireland and has been doing so for many years. Would it ever be possible for me to have dual citizenship - both in Ireland and the Philippines? I read somewhere about the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquistion Act of 2003. It says that an individual who was a natural-born Filipino but lost his/her Philippine citizenship due to naturalization of a foreign country, may now apply for the Administration of Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Would my Dad have to do that first in order for me to gain Filipino citizenship? Thank you, Marian
And here is Bob's response to Marian:
It depends if your father was a Philippine Citizen at the time you were born.
Thank you for dropping by, Marian.
EDITORIAL COIMMENT BY FILIPINO DIARY: The above is a question we picked up on the internet which we attempt to answer as follows:
ANSWER: If Marian was born before her father became an Irish citizen, and she is still a minor, she is automatically a Philippine citizen, but should register with the nearest embassy. On 19th February 2009 the Supreme Court of the Philippine made a distinction between "Dual Citizenship" and "Dual Allegiance" .
Marian seems to fall under Dual Citizenship and as such does not have to swear an Oath of Alegiance. In her photo she appearas that she could be a full Filipino, in which case she could also claim Filipino Citizenship through her mother !
The plan of the Benigno Aquino III administration to close a number of foreign posts is impractical and insensitive to the plight of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).
This was the stand of Migrante International, a global alliance of OFWs and their families, in the wake of the Department of Foreign Affairs' (DFA) announcement that it will to close down 12 Philippine embassies and consulates by the end of 2012.
Garry Martinez, Migrante International chairperson, said the planned closures were highly impractical and goes against the best interests of OFWs.
"We already have a shortage of Philippine posts abroad as it is. It is unfortunate that the Aquino administration is attacking embassies and consulates as part of its austerity measures. These same posts, despite their weaknesses and frequent failure to protect OFWs, are still what consists of a support system for OFWs abroad," he said.
Martinez said instead of closing the doors of Philippine posts abroad, the government should even establish more embassies and consulates in other countries and ensure that its officials provide efficient and sufficient services to Filipinos living abroad.
There are currently 66 Philippine embassies, 23 consulates and four diplomatic missions worldwide. In the meantime, overseas Filipinos are deployed and are living in at least 239 countries.
Martinez said there are countries where there are many OFWs but with no Philippine posts.
"In Tanzania, for example, where hundreds of Filipino seafarers are in jail for illegal fishing, there is no Philippine post. The closest embassy OFWs in distress could run to in Tanzania is the Philippine embassy in Kenya. The embassy in Kenya, on the other hand, covers 12 other African countries. In Saudi Arabia, where there is an estimated 1.8 million OFWs, there are only two Philippine posts: an embassy in Riyadh and a consulate in Jeddah," he said.
Martinez said most cases of human and labor rights abuses, mysterious deaths, jailed OFWs and OFWs in death row that have been reported to Migrante International are in Saudi Arabia. Posts in Saudi Arabia have also been reported as "not accessible" to Filipinos in the country's provinces. Hong Kong and Singapore, with more than 150,000 OFWs each, only have one embassy.
"The list goes on and on. The point is, we cannot afford to have less Philippine posts when more than 10 percent of our population is abroad," Martinez said.
He also said even the logic behind calls to close down embassies and consulates is twisted. Sen. Franklin Drilon said that the government will be able to save P100 million ($2,325,581) to P150 million ($3,488,372) from the closure of 12 embassies and consulates. He said the DFA should close down some of its 92 embassies and consulates such as those in Romania, Czech Republic, and Hungary, countries which the Philippines does little trade with.
Martinez, however, said the 93 existing Philippine posts around the world only get an average annual budget of P1.07 million ($23,255. ) to P1.6 million ($ 23,255) each.
"The DFA and the Aquino administration plan to close down posts that are already operating on very low funds. Compared to other agencies that enjoy immensely huge budgets but are still breeding grounds for corruption and graft, these embassies and consulates provide immediate and concrete assistance to OFWs. There is no sense in this proposal," he pointed out.
According to the labor leader, this latest anti-OFW proposal is consistent with the Aquino government's track of decreasing funds intended for direct services for OFWs. Since July this year, Migrante International has been campaigning against budget cuts on direct services for OFWs in concerned agencies, including the DFA. In the proposed 2012 budget, direct services for OFWs in concerned government agencies will only amount to not more than P3.14 billion ($73,023,255) or only 0.17 percent of the total budget, or a per capita spending of P261.83. ($6.09). The fund for direct services for OFWs in concerned agencies was slashed by approximately P792 million ($18,418,604).
Who said the Dublin embassy should be transferred to Saudi Arabia ?
Q: How do I count the 21 days for a Philippine visit without a visa?
A: You'll see several different methods being circulated about how to count the 21 days, but they all come up with the same answer. The day you arrive is a day of visit, the day you depart isnot a day of visit in the Philippines. So count from the day you arrive to the day before you depart, or count from the day after you arrive and include the day you depart, whichever way makes more sense to you. Much more on the ‘how do I count days in the Philippines' here.
Q: What if my flight arrives close to mid-night and I don't get my passport stamped until it's actually the next calendar day?
A: Well, I can't find an official Bureau of Immigration "reading" on this, but in my personal experience (I arrived one night at 2345 (11:45 pm) and got my passport stamped about 0015 (12:15 am) the next day ... the Immigration Officer was still using the date stamp for the previous day). I can't guarantee what experience you will have if you arrive in a similar situation ... write and let us know if your checking in works out differently.
SECONDLY MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION
Q: My Philippine friend wants to visit me in Ireland. As an Irish citizen, can I sponsor her for a visitor's visa?
A: Short answer, no. A foreigner applying for a visitor's visa basically has to stand on his or her two feet. Single women, particularly if the Department of Justice knows them to have "eligible" male friends in Ireland are going to have a very difficult time getting a visa. Not impossible, but close to it.
Just needs a little tender loving care.
WILL I HAVE A PROBLEM IF I BUILD MY HOUSE ON MY SISTER'S LAND ?
Under Philippine law (and the law of many other countries), a building upon a piece of property can not be separated from the property itself, except under some specific, legal conditions.
The short hand term for this fact is often stated that "Improvements run with the land".
Time and time again I hear of people proposing a way around the well-know Philippine constitution prohibition against foreigners owning land by coming up with a scheme such as, "My wife will own the land but I'll own the house I build". Not going to happen.
Even worse will be situations like the one in Feyma's Family Feud where an OFW worker will send home money to be used to build a house upon land that someone else in the family owns.
Everyone seems to blissfully travel through life secure in the assumption that it is sister "A"'s land but it is sister "B"'s house, because after all, sister "B" paid to have the house built, so it's easy to believe she owns it.
Under common law, in the vast majority of cases, sister "B" owns absolutely nothing, because the house is built upon sister "A"'s land, and thus becomes an "improvement" thereon, and "runs" with sister "A"'s land. If the two get angry at each other, the fact that sister "B" paid all that money changes nothing, sister "A" still very likely owns the land and the house on it, and that pretty much ends the discussion.
Now I can think of probably half a dozen ways to make this situation a bit less potentially explosive before the house gets built ... an agreement giving the builder of the house a share in the property, a lease of the house which also has to run with the land so that the home builder can always use the house, no matter who may hold title, or even a condominium type agreement.
These are just ideas, mind you, not legal advice, and all of them are complex enough that, indeed, legal advice is warranted.
But the simplest cure to potential long-term family disputes, heart aches and even out-and-out injustices is, remember one simple fact.
Houses run with the land ... until your lawyer tells you different. This one simple thought could save you, literally, millions.
I accidentally came across this conversation on the internet. It seems to be a conversation between an Irish (who's style I recognize), and a member of the Dublin embassy staff; and other Filipinos join in.
IS THIS ABUSE OF FILIPINO TAX PAYERS MONEY (ENTER THOSE WORDS ON U TUBE TO READ THE FORUM CONVERSATION)
to fellow forum members , i go through this web sight as it gives a good feed back on the philippines defence forces . sometimes if not most of the times , the defence forces of the philippines have to make do with very little funding .
but what about the diplomatic staff of the philippines abroad .
the thing about this is that before the new filipino ambassador came to ireland john ferris did all the work in ireland on behalf of the filipino government . he did not run up hugh bills for the filipino government but look at what the new ambassador is doing .
compare his expensive bmw ( paid for by filipino tax ) to what the other foreign embassies in dublin provide their staff with .
But I agree, if an ambassador spends more unnecessarily when a consul saved us a lot of money and made a better representation, send the ambassador home.
Despicable, disappointing, atrocious, but not surprising. It might still be arguably OK if he just did his job but no such luck, apparently.
Always the same excuse when caught buying extravagant toys with poor people's money, they are just setting a good image for the Philippines. Sounds a lot like Imelda. Sorry excuses for mammals wasting oxygen.
Interesting what he said about the 7 series, the embassy got a discount anyway. Imagine if he settled for a discounted 3-series how much of a savings that would have been. But no, has to be a 7. What would other countries think Filipinos are? Poor?
i wonder.... is there an unspoken/unofficial rule about diplomatic cars? I mean... if europeans want to take the Philippine Ambassador seriously doesnt it just make sense to roll in with a BMW than say a thrifty honda civic LX???
yes he is to blame as well . the main job of the filipino embassy here in ireland is to attend to filipino government business and to the filipino community here in ireland . in the article you see two different ambassadors from other countries here in ireland . they have no problem riding around in ordinary transport .
what is your government putting first . the luxury transport of your ambassador or diverting that money else were .
life is hard in the philippines and to see this happening .
i intend to find out what happened to the filipino domestic help brought over here to ireland by the filipino embassy staff . she complained she was been exploited and complained to the irish government here .
in the end of the day it is the ordinary filipino who is paying for that embassy in dublin luxury life style . and the funny thing about their web site is that they have even gone to the extent of getting first aid kits for the army in the philippines army . yet your government should have been supplying those things in the first place but instead allows its embassy staff buy what they want .
We Filipinos have a penchant for expensive luxury cars no.......for the service of the people? BMW series 7, Mitsubishi Montero, Nissan Strada, Toyota Grandia, atbp. What better way to serve the people but to travel in style? Only in the Philippines!
Let us know what you find out about the maid. Thank you. It's infuriating that the ones that are supposed to protect overseas Filipino from abuse are the ones doing the abuse themselves.
compare his expensive bmw ( paid for by filipino tax ) to what the other foreign embassies in dublin provide their staff with .
in my opinion this is a waste of filipino taxs .
what do members think .
Redoctober, before you even make a comment like this, do take note that an Ambassador is not just the personal representative of the President of the Republic, but also the people.
While you pointed out that our Ambassador in Ireland purchased a BMW 7 Series, may I ask you what should be a reasonable vehicle for any of our Ambassadors to purchase abroad? Are you suggesting they ride a bike to work? How do you expect the Ambassadors to represent our country?
Do take note that our Embassies are sovereign territories, and our official vehicles are accorded Diplomatic Status by the Vienna Convention. As official representatives of these countries, how do you want us to present ourselves to them? As equals, or as beggars?
I have been traveling all over, and nothing more embarrassing to me is to see our country's missions and officials being left to their own devices.
Oh, and take note, Honorary-Consul John Ferris was doing an OK job in Ireland, but because of the number of Filipino OFWs, he alone cannot handle the volume of business needed in Dublin. I don't know what kind of solution can you think out of this?
I would say our taxes spent on diplomatic missions is worth every penny. I would even say, kulang pa.
Topic: is this abuse of filipino tax payers money (Read 2343 times)
first of all to point out that even when Honorary-Consul John Ferris was unhappy with the expensive bmw the embassy brought that should say something in its self . even filipinos here in ireland are not happy with what was brought .
for the record i am not anti filipino but pro filipino . my wife and kids are filipino irish .
we even help get medical equipment from irish hospitals for use in filipino hospitals .
any filipino that comes to ireland we go out of our way to help them get on their feet fast .
from you hussar
Reply.
i accept any embassy staff need transport to get around but why an expensive bmw model . the philippines does not even have that sort of money to be playing around with . would it not be cheaper to hire a bmw for some event where image was important and return it next day . that makes economic sense . the embassy could make do with ordinary and cheaper transport . the two most important symbols / image of any country is the flag of the nation and the elected president . for the president of a country yes an expensive model of a car with the nations flag on display .
from you hussar
" Do take note that our Embassies are sovereign territories, and our official vehicles are accorded Diplomatic Status by the Vienna Convention. As official representatives of these countries, how do you want us to present ourselves to them? As equals, or as beggars? "
Reply: in my eyes all people are equal regardless of which country they come from . but the point i make out to you is that you have two other foreign embassies here in ireland where the ambassador is very happy to turn up at events in dublin on a bike and the other on a small electric car . they have no problem in doing it .
for the record our own (Irish) ministers have been pulled up for driving expensive models . now if ever there is a government meeting the army steps in an provides an army bus to get them around . cheap and effective . i am aware of the rented cars hired by the filipino embassy . there was nothing wrong with them . why were they not used .
from you hussar yes john ferris needed more help and staff assigned to him . but even he himself would not have run up such expense .
from you hussar quoting opus
" Opus, our Ambassadors are not sent out (in your words) to "beg for financial aid." They are out there to represent our country first and foremost. "Begging for financial aid" is not even in our foreign policy. FYI. "
all countries in the world borrow money from other countries . prime example america from china . even my own country at the current moment from the european central bank and the imf .
any country that borrows money always pays it back in full at a latter stage and with interest . so i do not think the word " beg " enters anything .
from you hussar
"The point I hold in mind is that there are things in government that are considered as Sacred Cows. We can all ask, why does the President fly on a private or government jet, when he can go first class on a commercial flight? Why does he have to have a 15-car convoy when 3 can do? "
i understand where you come from hussar . you yourself are aware of how marcos and his wife liked the expensive things in life .
from the bottom of my hearth i strongly feel the filipino ambassador in dublin has made a great mistake in buying such an expensive model car . even the current female president of ireland has flown with ryan air ( low cost budget airline ) when traveling abroad to represent ireland abroad . in the current climate world wide she wants to send out the right message . that even she herself while doing her job , does her best to keep costs down . and thats my president of my country .
hussar not to side track from the topic but to get across what I'm trying to say . watch this youtube link .
if the ordinary filipino is struggling to get by from day to day , then i think its wrong for any ambassador to be spending money on expensive cars when they could be rented for a day for any event .
in the youtube clip you will see filipino hospitals over crowded . could the money saved from renting a car instead have been spent somewhere else in the philippines much better needed . is that not a fair and honest question to ask ?
Opus, our Ambassadors are not sent out (in your words) to "beg for financial aid." They are out there to represent our country first and foremost. "Begging for financial aid" is not even in our foreign policy. FYI.
But that's what they end up doing, isn't it? I understand the thinking that our ambassadors should present a good image for the country, but when everyone knows the country is dirt poor, buying a new top-of-the-line BMW does NOT say that the Philippines has "arrived", it shows a huge disconnect with reality. And when staff in your overseas mission whose job it is to protect from abuse and exploitation Filipinos overseas, who are there primarily for economic reasons, actually commits the abuse itself, that just makes everyone think these guys can't be taken seriously.
While you pointed out that our Ambassador in Ireland purchased a BMW 7 Series, may I ask you what should be a reasonable vehicle for any of our Ambassadors to purchase abroad? Are you suggesting they ride a bike to work? How do you expect the Ambassadors to represent our country?
apparently, the Norwegian Ambassador does... and he represents a richer country than us...
I wonder what the ambassador thinks makes Filipinos look bad, the Philippine Embassy having a more modest car than a BMW 7 or having one of your diplomatic staffers' maids escape and bring a labor case against him and the ambassador just brushing him off and having Filipinos protest against its own embassy?
Opus, I am glad then that you understand the concept of the Sacred Cow with my first series of question, but then again we arrived back to your same position at the end. I think it would be better if we start by asking how does our Embassies purchase vehicles for our diplomats?
Is it that the Ambassador just flippantly buys a car because he likes it so?
Or, does he coordinate with his superiors in DFA, by first choosing a model and then requesting a budget?
Or, is it that they first set aside a budget, and then get the best car for that money?
Or, is it the DFA USecs or Sec that makes that call whether an Ambassador gets a type of car?
Why also focus on our Embassy in Ireland? Why hasn't anyone in this thread called out to check on all our missions abroad? I am sure you guys will "shocked" to discover that our Embassies sometimes don't just have one but sometimes two luxury vehicles or SUVs assigned to our Ambassadors. (Not to mention, some have their own drivers and maids.) So, what's this thread about now? Asking all our Ambassadors and diplomats to give up their cars and look for Toyota Echos?
I've been to some Embassies and residences of our Ambassadors as well, and found in them Amorsolo paintings, and other works of arts by National Artists. Should we also make an issue out of that?
CrowValley, I read the article before I made the comment. You may want to ask the Norwegian Ambassador if he would do the same in Russia or the Philippines? I am sure there might be a change in the answer.
ANyway, following your logic, if let's say the Norwegian Embassy is using a drop box for visa application, should our process be the same? Or, let's say the Norwegian Embassy started using Skype for inter-office and department communications, should the Philippine Embassy drop its communications SOP and go for Skype as well?
It doesn't mean that if one mission is doing it, everyone should follow.
in the youtube clip you will see filipino hospitals over crowded . could the money saved from renting a car instead have been spent somewhere else in the philippines much better needed . is that not a fair and honest question to ask ?
redoctober, thanks again for the comment.
For the record also, my brother and his wife also live in Dublin, and thus I have heard the stories. With due respect to the Honorary Consul (who might be your friend), my brother didn't have anything good to say about the consular service prior to our Embassy's opening, and always had to fly to London just to get things done faster and easier. It's good though that I am hearing it from different sides.
I think we are both on the same side: we both love the Philippines. However, I guess we see how governments function in very different ways.
While I would commend the Irish PM on traveling on RyanAir, I would also say PNoy has done such feat when he went to Jakarta, by flying aboard Cebu-Pacific. However, we all know that these instances are the exceptions and not the rule. Even other Heads of States made the same PR event, and thus not exclusive to Ireland.
Then again, I am asking everyone in this thread, to where do we stop our questioning as to the abuse of tax payers money? Is it just with the PH Ambassador in Dublin, or are we going to be fair and look into all Philippine Missions abroad? Or are we also going to question the other luxury purchases of our government - such as furnishing for Ambassadors residences? The annual renovations of Malcanang, and the other official residences of government officials such as the AFP Chief-of-Staff? Are we going to howl now at the redecoration of government offices, or the installation of LCDs, top of the line project and state-of-the-art networks in them?
IMHO, if ambassadors of 1st world countries are ok with riding a bike and much smaller and far cheaper cars, why then can't an ambassador of a 3rd world country do the same, considering they are on the same country serving as Diplomats, would it make the citizens of that country view the ambassador and his people any less?
I remember a very rich friend of mine, he always wore simple shirt and pants, and when we were together we liked eating at carenderia's tambay just anywhere, then i noticed the people we know who weren't really well off financially, their clothes should always be branded shirts and pants, they always have dangling accessories and jewelries, they wear Rayban shades even when indoors, and they will only tambay at starbucks, for what? just so others wouldn't think they're poor... but at the end of the day, my friend goes home, eats delicious full course meals, while those people with better looking clothes starve because they spent their money on things they can't afford...
this is just one filipino embassy that have gone over board in buying an expensive bmw .
but the question is how many other filipino embassies are there world wide . if they are all going for top of the range expensive cars , then that is hugh sums of money been wasted .
who is looking out for the filipino interest here . its your taxs . could not that extra money be spent on providing extra teachers , nurses , doctors etc .
on this great forum which i have been following for years , you come across various articles ref filipino military personnel who have been killed in various fighting in the philippines . these brave men gave their lives so that their fellow filipinos could live in peace and most important that their very own families could live in a peaceful and just country , where all people are equal .
even on your own currency the words " the filipino is worth dieing for " .
but your embassy staff appear to live a life which is out of contact with all other filipinos . they love the expensive life trappings .
approx 861 people have read this article . if anything good comes out of this then please spread the word of the carry on of embassy staff like this . this must be stopped and they made accountable .
this is the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland that fights for exploited workers and who helped the exploited filipinos in the embassy .
Ok if there is a disconnect, as you say, what then would be a car that is "connected" to reality for our Ambassadors?
I have no idea how Philippine embassies decide what car to buy but I hope the policy is not to buy the most expensive car they want to be seen being driven in and call it "good value." Sort of like one Senate hearing on what fighter the Philippine Air Force should buy. One well-known senator said "if we are going to spend so much money anyway, we should buy the best that is available. What is the best available?" See the line of thinking? Highest price = best value, never mind that your budget is not unlimited and you cannot buy the best available. You should aim for the best value your LIMITED RESOURCES can buy.
In any case, you ask what they SHOULD buy. Tell me if other embassies will laugh at the Philippines if the ambassador gets driven around in the following:
Addicted to German engineering? Try the Volkswagen Passat CC:
None of these come up to even half what the BMW 7 cost and none are going to make the Irish or other ambassadors laugh at the Philippines. However a BMW 7-series WILL because EVERYONE KNOWS the country is poor, and buying a 92,000 Euro car does not change that. Who do they think they are fooling? Luho lang talaga. Like Imelda justifying her 3,000 pairs of designer shoes by asking if people wanted her to go barefoot.
Oh, guess what the US ambassador to South Korea drives: A Chevy Volt. That's a US$40,000 car!
Ok if there is a disconnect, as you say, what then would be a car that is "connected" to reality for our Ambassadors?
BMW 7 Series...why not a 5 Series? Why not a Mercedes Benz...E350 BluTec is US$20K cheaper.
Disconnected and Connected: I think Delicadeza is the key term. If one is to represent the people in another Country then it should not create a false impression of what reality is. A BMW 7 Series does not represent starving people but then again a cheaper Japanese car (Toyota, Honda, etc.) does not represent the "richer" people of the Philippines. Others opt to bring their "own" cars in the Host Country but what do we bring? A Sarao Jeep is not safe to drive outside the Philippines. Some use locally made cars but I don't think our Ambassador is Marty McFly enough to drive a Delorean. I guess the answer to what kind of car can be found on this question: What does the Philippine Government (read President) want to portray our Country to the world?
Ok, so using again your logic, let's say the Norwegian Ambassador does his mission with 2 staff members and a laptop, does that mean all the other countries' missions should follow suit?
Ok, another one: Let's say the Norwegian Ambassador does not entertain guests nor hold official functions because of their government's austerity measures, does that mean everyone should follow?
government departments that waste filipino tax payers money should be fined even if they work in embassies .
the main reason i'm so anti any government offical that wastes filipino taxs payers money is as follows .
the very first time i went out to the philippines i came across an article that was in one of the free newspapers in the hotel that i was staying in . this was my first newspaper in the philippines so i read it with great interest .
it went on about this young couple who were from the slums and his wife was pregnant . she started going into labour early so the husband brought her to the nearest hospital . after a few mins treatment , the hospital staff asked them who was going to pay for the treatment and did he have any medical cover . the husband said he did not and that they did not have any money . the hospital stopped all treatment there and then and asked them to leave the hospital . straight away the husband rushed his wife to another hospital. the new hospital started treating her but then again asked who was going to pay for the treatment . the husband said they did not have the money nor any medical cover . the hospital stopped all treatment but also told him they would not leave his wife out of the hospital until he paid for the initial ttreatment she got when she came in . he ran out and had to beg , borrow or steal just to get that money . after the hospital left his wife go , as they were going down the steps of the hospital with his pregnant wife , she went into labour and lost the babies that she was carrying on the very steps of the hospital that refused to treat them . all because of money .
and yet here is a filipino ambassador here in ireland spending money on a very expensive bmw when that excess money could be spent in a public hospital .
people all i can say to you is this . this carry on is wrong . what does it take to email your national newspapers , local government reps and even your president . at the end of any email , just leave 3 simple letters " Copy On File " . it would be a very foolish person to ignore those words .
Thanks Opus for taking the time and making some suggestions.
However, I would say that reading again the article, one should have raised the red flag before because of the subjectivity of the tone. As far as I remember Journalism 101, writing down a news item should always be objective.
Looking at the cost of the vehicle as well, the writer even had the "exact" figure in Philippine Peso, and the cost of the vehicles of other Ambassadors. Unless he received a copy of the sales receipt on those vehicles, I would like to submit that we should safely conclude that the figure he presented were sticker price of the vehicles, and not the actual cost shelled out by the governments. Do take note that purchases made by diplomatic missions are tax exempt.
I spoke briefly with my brother about this issue, and he gave me a general idea on purchasing cars in Ireland. One needs to consider that the sticker price would include the taxes, and that would be the VRT (Vehicle Registration Tax), Motor Tax, and VAT. VRT and Motor Tax is calculated according to the CO2/km emissions, which could go as high as 36%, while VAT is 21%.
Maybe redoctober would be kind enough to confirm this information, how much indeed would a BMW 7 Series cost in Ireland apart from the taxes. We can then argue next about the actual amount the Ambassador shelled from the national treasury to drive down Dublin with "prestige."
Then again, I would be submitting to our friends here, why focus on the BMW? And, why the Philippine Ambassador to Ireland?
Have we not forgotten that all our Embassies have their motor pools? Have not noticed that our Ambassadors are driving luxury vehicles, and even at times have 2 cars assigned to them and their family?
Remember in 2000 when our Ambassador to Indonesia, Leonides Caday, who was in his official car, a Mercedes-Benz, when a car bomb exploded outside the official residency which is in the ritzy neighborhood of Jakarta?
What about the residences? If you took note, our Ambassadors do not live in simple villas, but mansions, and some of our chanceries are located in the most exclusive parts of the capital cities:
The PHL Ambassador in the US get's his own townhouse. And, take note of the cars:
In The Hague, we have a very opulent building to represent our people:
But my favorite, and unforgettable is the one we have in Piccadilly in London. Our very own...
To be honest, I am pretty amazed that our DFA is able to manage a budget of PhP 11 Billion, which requires them to not only maintain missions in almost 100 Embassies and Consulates, but also conduct standard diplomatic affairs and consular services in our Archipelago, and attend to the needs of 10 Million Filipinos who are abroad.
Now, since you guys are saying and confessing we are a 3rd World Country, do we now also howl foul against the DFA for housing those Ambassadors in mansions, and acquiring chanceries that are of the least opulent? Do we tell our Ambassadors to move to a house that would be of the size you would find in a 3rd World Country? Do we move our embassies and consulates in an address that would represent the 3rd World much better?
BMW 7 Series...why not a 5 Series? Why not a Mercedes Benz...E350 BluTec is US$20K cheaper.
Disconnected and Connected: I think Delicadeza is the key term. If one is to represent the people in another Country then it should not create a false impression of what reality is.
What about the Ambassadors residences? Our Ambassadors are housed in mansions? Why not raise a howl against that?
A starving Filipino lives in a small shanty the size of some walk-in closets of those mansions. Following your logic, do we then connect our Embassies and Ambassadors to the reality of starving Filipinos - err, by moving the Ambassadors to a studio type of about 5 square meters?
first of all to point out that even when Honorary-Consul John Ferris was unhappy with the expensive bmw the embassy brought that should say something in its self.
Of course Honorary Consul John Ferris would be unhappy. He was doing the job pro bono to the PHL government! And now, we have an Ambassador who has his own office, staff, full diplomatic recognition, housing, and official car! Yes, a fully functional Embassy.
Hon. Consul Ferris and his wife were doing the job by themselves, and had to report all consular matters still to the PHL Embassy in London. Which sadly was the original complaint of OFWs in Ireland because of the disorganized system and slow service. By golly, the whole affair was done on pen & paper and shoeboxes. Yes, truly 3rd World!
I still would say, I am glad the PHL government opened an Embassy in Dublin.
Here's something that we could also raise a howl against: The Philippine Embassy in Brunei Darussalam constructs and opens a new Chancery... a huge one that is, on an 11,750 sqm lot!
Isn't 11,750 sqm too much for a 3rd World Country?
Would it be more "connected to reality" for a 3rd World Country to have an Embassy of the size of about 35 sqm, which is the size of a low cost housing in the PHL?
Oh, and Palafox & Associates were hired to design the new Embassy. As a 3rd World Country, would it be more apt for us to just have sent a seasoned builders and tradesmen from Payatas or Smokey Mountain - but make them do with whatever materials they can collect from the surroundings?
Where does this abuse of tax payer's money end? We are just a 3rd World Country! Stop dreaming guys
these are the very filipinos i see effected by waste of public funds . i have seen all the fine filipino embassies you have shown and indeed some other expensive cars . but could the money for these have been spent wiser .
to keep things even simplier which is more important to a filipino .
putting food on his families table , clothes , shoes , a primary and secondary education , a health care system that works and is affordable and a job that provides for his families needs .
all these expensive embassies , expensive cars etc . is it not possible for a much cheaper car or indeed a car rented out for important functions etc . this thing with embassies is it a thing such as " keeping up with the jonses "
to be honest i do not see the philippines as a 3rd world country . i do not look on any country as a first , second or third . the philippines is just like any other country . it has its good points and bad .
but it is fair to say a lot of people are in poverty in the philippines and money spent by the government could be better spent .
Maybe a bit of perspective for the sake of comparison.
The Irish are a pragmatic people. If it does the job right, no sense in making it any fancier. Fancy just equates to worthless (i.e. English class system, royals, and "gentleman rankers".)
Filipinos are big believers in face (hiya). It's the same face that drives what many Filipinos call "hospitality". Make the best impression even if it means losing more, but make a big impression none the less. Part of being Asian, and it carries through to all Asians everywhere. Bling carries with it some sense of importance and brings recognition.
I agree with Hussar that somehow the ambassador must have some bling to be recognized as a representative of the Philippines. But I agree with redoctober that a fancy car is just too much (especially in Ireland, where diplomatic bling is just pointless).
Ok, so using again your logic, let's say the Norwegian Ambassador does his mission with 2 staff members and a laptop, does that mean all the other countries' missions should follow suit?
Ok, another one: Let's say the Norwegian Ambassador does not entertain guests nor hold official functions because of their government's austerity measures, does that mean everyone should follow?
Just asking...
I don't know what logic you are talking about here sir, but i don't think you should be comparing those with a car, a luxury car, by the name itself you would see that its a luxury, one we can't or shouldn't afford.. i don't care if the ambassador had 10 staff's and 20 laptops as long as everyone of them are doing their jobs and doing it well..
-here's a logic, you own a struggling company and you got two people applying for the same job in your office as a janitor, one guy had a degree in college and another guy who barely finished high-school... the college guy asks for a salary 3 times more than the other. would you hire the college guy considering the Highschool guy can do the job as well for less? or you willing to pay more just so other companies would see you have a college grad as a janitor?
Hussar - Going back to the series 7 car mentioned here, is it really necessary to have it. I wont be adding more on it, it was already articulated by other forum members.
Why don't you read my post again. What freaking logic are you talking about?
I read it again. Can you enlighten me on your point?
I understand that you are suggesting instead of BMW 7 Series, the Ambassador should have settled for 5 Series. So, in the same thread (and logic), why don't we suggest here that Ambassadors also evacuate their mansions, and move to say a smaller house (that is more connected to a reality of a 3rd World Country)?
FILIPINO CREWMEN OF CAPSIZED "COSTA CONCORDIA" SHIP
Those Filipinos wearing crimson jackets were the waiters in the restaurants. Dinner was being served at the time when the ship hit the rock.
Saturday, 14 January 2012 13:28 | Last Updated on Saturday, 14 January 2012 14:07 | Written by rome | | |
14 January 2012- Early this morning, Ambassador Virgilio A. Reyes, Jr. dispatched an 8-man Embassy Emergency Response Team, led by Consul General Grace Cruz-Fabella, to Porto Sto Stefano, the port that serves as the initial rescue center of the crew and passengers of "Costa Concordia," the cruise ship that capsized near the island of Giglio along the west coast of Italy, in the early hours today.
Along with the response team, a nerve center for operations was activated at the Philippine Embassy in Rome to coordinate actions of the response team and the feedback of the Costa Concordia officials and relevant managing agencies, and to ensure timely reporting/updating to the Departments of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Overseas Workers' Welfare Association (OWWA).
Poland has amnesty for immigrants
Published on Friday 30 December 2011 03:17
Thousands of illegal immigrants will be allowed to stay and work in Poland under an amnesty unveiled yesterday that highlights the country's transformation into a regional economic powerhouse from communist-era basket case.
Traditionally a country of emigration, Poland has become an increasingly attractive magnet for immigrants, especially from neighbouring former Soviet republics such as Ukraine and Belarus, as it notches up high rates of economic growth.
Under the amnesty, economic migrants and unsuccessful asylum seekers will be able from 1 January to receive a resident card for two years that will allow them to work legally in Poland.
The amnesty will apply to undocumented immigrants who arrived in Poland before 20 December, 2007, and to asylum seekers who were denied refugee status before 1 January, 2010, provided that they have continuously resided in Poland.
Apart from Ukrainians, Belarussians and other former Soviet citizens, members of Poland's Vietnamese community are expected to be among the main beneficiaries.
EDITORIAL COMMENT.....................
It has come to our attention that someone read the November edition of the Filipino Diary. On 9th January, we noticed a reaction in Balita Pinoy letters section, to the Filipino Diary from Toli in Dublin about the contents published near the end of November concerning Dual Nationality.
Before publishing the letter we first give our comment on the article instead of at the end.
It's difficult to comment on the letter of Toki as it's not very logical in content. To refresh readers minds I had stated in the November Filipino Diary the following :-
(1) The Dual Nationality Act of 2003 is VERY poorly drafted, has a poor usage of quality English and, as it stands, allows several interpretations. That is VERY poor legislation.
(2) I then quoted two sections of the Law which contradict each other as follows:-
Section 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippines citizens who became citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
Section 3. RETENTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP - Any provision of law to the contrary nothwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the Oath.
(Editorial comment: this last clause seems to contradict section one, and implies Filipinos lose their Filipino citizenship and are therefore obliged, in effect, to become Philippine citizens again.
This legislation is so poor that it has had to go to the Supreme Court of the Philippines on several occasions to get a proper interpretation.
I gave as example of one of several cases where the Supreme Court has ruled upon as In the case of Cordora vs. COMELEC, et al. (G.R. No. 176947, 19 February 2009) , the Supreme Court explained - Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance
. ( EDITORIAL COMMENT: This we believe has serious implications for Filipinos in Ireland who take an Oath at the embassy, and they are advised not to do that unless they know what they are doing. We dealt with this in detail in our December Filipino Diaries and advised Filipinos not to take an Oath at the Philippine Embassy unless they realized the consequences of what they were doing, and the implications for themselves and their families.)
The letter writer makes an issue over the fact of a typing error whereby the Commission of Filipinos Overseas email address had " ie" at the end, instead of "ph". And that I was giving legal opinions, which is not the case; I was quoting legal opinions already in the public domain.
He also states that common sense should be sufficient to understand the two sections of the Law which I have stated contradicted each other, and it should be clear to everybody.
My reply is that Filipinos should hedge their bets, play safe, and not have anything to with swearing an Oath of allegiance at the embassy for the time being, as it's not necessary.
He then states....... "How this law should be enforced and legally interpreted, is of course, subject to the government that has created this law and implemented it in the first place." on quote.
My reply to this is that "this is the problem, there is no mention in the Philippine embassy guidelinse about the Supreme Court decision of three years ago; the ruling is completely ignored, and therefore Filipinos have no means of making a decision based on the facts, and are given no access to information to inform themselves of these facts !
THE FIRST REACTION FROM ONE OF OUR READERS TO THE ARTICLE BELOW WAS .........
Not a hornets nest, not even a sting-less bumble bee ! Ignore him and he will go away. In any case, he is a few months late in his inane responses. For one who complains about "quality English" he needs to look no further than his own mirror. For one who complains about "opinions" he does nought except proffer his own. Saddest of all, his most unfortunate lack of logic and inability to construct a coherent sentence is his greatest deficiency. Obviously he is trying to score kudos with the embassy, or may even be an embassy minion under riding instructions. In any case he makes NO addition to a very important debate, which will have to be resolved at some stage
THERE NOW FOLLOWS THE ARTICLE OF TOKI EXTRACTED FROM BALITA PINOY.
Toki Rodriguez wrote ... ..........
And here we have another badly-written article of the Filipino Diary's November 2011 issue. Any sensible reader can easily identify that it is one-sided, written from the author's personal standing and interests. With so many opinion statements, one can barely even classify this as news
It is obviously an opinion column. Having been archived in the news section, it is clearly not a news article since it was not written from a neutral stance. For an article, it is clearly unbalanced, opinionated, and hypocritical. Does the author even have a legal education background or qualification whatsoever to comment on such a sensitive issue?
1. The first fallacy here is that the author begins by criticizing the competence of Philippine legislation, mocking its quality and usage of English and abruptly passing it off as ‘poor legislation'. Barely entering into the issue, the author already starts off ridiculing the proficiency of a foreign country's law-making body without even pointing out and identifying any section of the statute which s/he claims to have "poor usage of English".
No one is in the position to arbitrarily judge as to what is ‘quality English' or not (if such classification does even exist at all). As a historical fact, it is not even the native language of either country. Both standard Philippine English and Irish English are distinct and unique in their own methods of usage. The fact that English is only spoken as a second language in the Philippines doesn't make its users any less competent in using it in any way. And besides, the author should re-check his/her own grammatical and spelling errors in this article as well.
2. Coming to the second point, the author then starts raising what s/he claims to be the ‘key' issue of the article by stating that the re-taking of oath of allegiance to the Philippine flag is not necessary is if a respective country's naturalization process does not cause a person to lose his/her citizenship. With this, additional instructions are specified in bullet points (without source) drilling to Filipinos that they should not be required to lose their passports, not lose their citizenship and not swear another allegiance to a country of which they are already a citizen of. To whom exactly are these statements addressed? To the overall national government in Manila? To the Philippine Embassy in Dublin?
3. Moving on, the author cites contradictories between the citizenship laws of both countries. All states have their respective laws regarding citizenship that function independently from each other. Hence, the possibility for contradictories in their provisions could always arise. So what if Irish citizenship law doesn't require a naturalized citizen to drop their former citizenship? If the another counterpart requires reacquisition in its own laws, then that clause wouldn't even be applicable in the first place. As sovereign states, the Philippines and Ireland have totally separate legal systems acting independently from one another. One seriously cannot expect one country to adjust to the laws of the other.
4.The fact that the statute itself has been named the "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003", as stated in the first clause, means that there is a procedure for ‘re-acquisition' that has to be done aside from the aforementioned ‘retention' of citizenship. As for the succeeding section, although it is stated that Philippine citizenship is not lost by ‘principle', Section 3 clearly indicates a re-acquisition process on how to regain Philippine citizenship: Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic: "I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
5. Common sense should already indicate that although Philippine citizenship is not lost by ‘principle' in Section 2, the provisions of Section 3 clearly indicates that it is temporarily lost through ‘technical' means but also automatically re-acquirable right after taking oath to the republic. With this, the entire process of ‘retention' and ‘reacquisition' of Philippine citizenship it should be clear to everybody. How this law should be enforced and legally interpreted, is of course, subject to the government that has created this law and implemented it in the first place, which in this case is no other than the Philippine government itself. The argument of laws having different interpretations is as good as bogus since even Irish law, or any kind of law for that matter, can be interpreted in different ways.
6. The author then engages in a frenzy of refuting and questioning several provisions of the statute which s/he claims to be unclear or conflicting with each other in a scornful manner. In one paragraph where the official website of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) is cited, the author erroneously quotes the Philippine government agency as ".ie". So, who is exactly being addressed here? Who is the author criticizing here?
Is this article addressed to the legislators of the Philippine Congress who have authored this statute and eventually signed it into national law?
Is it the Philippine Embassy in Dublin which is only enforcing laws and duties instructed to them by the Philippine Government (aka Department of Foreign Affairs) back in Manila?
Is the author then suggesting that Philippine law makers and public officials are incompetent? If yes, on what grounds? And who is s/he to say so in the first place? Are they even valid?
7.In another paragraph, the author even resorts in appeal to emotion by indicating that the CFO has no jurisdiction of passport matters, which it never really had, hopeful to gain the resentment of the readers and abruptly concludes that embassies have the last say on such matters. He then quick to throw in figures giving readers the impression that the diplomatic mission is earning big money out of the entire process. Is the author accusing the embassy of any wrongdoing or profit-making?
Again, what is his/her basis for this? He even stretches this appeal to emotion tactic even further by explicitly talking about the Filipino struggle and the economic recession that bedevils Ireland. This cliché is apparently as good as corny. Any person who has ever applied for a passport of any country knows that there are always corresponding fees in the processing of such application. Isn't the author aware it is the same in any embassy?
That the price is already standardized by a government mandate in every Philippine embassy or consulate you apply throughout Europe and most parts of the world?
Does the author even have the overwhelming consensus of Filipino Community members to claim that they want an explanation from the embassy website?
If the author is so concerned about the matter, why doesn't s/he go the embassy personally and question officials there?
Or bring it up to the Philippine government in Manila? Weren't there already official forums conducted by the embassy for the addressing of such matters?
And even a journalistic expert could easily identify that a lot of the statements here are poorly backed. In fact, a lot of them are flaring with too much emotion and negativity, it makes the article even less credible and not to mention, hardly believable. Who is the author trying to fool, anyway?
Does s/he seriously think all Filipinos are going to buy this?
WE NOTICE THAT THE PHILIPPINE EMBASSY IN DUBIN HAVE NOT INCLUDED THE MRCI ON THE "LINKS" SECTION OF THEIR WEBSITE; ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE INCLUDED THE "IMMIGRATION COUNCIL OF IRELAND".
FILIPINOS ARE WONDERING IS THIS BECAUSE THE MRCI LOOKED AFTER AND TOOK CARE OF A FILIPINA DOMESTIC WORKER WHO WAS PAID €25 EURO A WEEK RESULTING IN THE MRCI BRINGING A CASE AGAINST THE EMBASSY FOR EXPLOITING ONE OF THE EMBASSY STAFF ?
Stockholm Philippine Embassy Hosts Inaugural DFAGA Europe Golf Tournament !
Posted 11 August, 2010 - 13:26
The Philippine Embassy in Stockholm hosted the inaugural DFA Golf Association (DFAGA) Europe Chapter Golf Tournament on 26 July 2010. Diplomats from Dublin, Paris and Prague participated in the event held at the International Golf Club, rated highly by Golf Digest. Among them were Ambassador Ariel Abadilla from Dublin, Commercial Attache Althea Antonio and Defense Attache Restituto Santos from Paris and Mr. Adrian Castillo from Prague.
The Tournament moves to Dublin next year with the offer of Ambassador Abadilla to host the event. The DFA Golf Association is headed by Undersecretary Rafael Sequis.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW.
We miss Mario Deleon who was always on hand to help the Filipinos in Ireland and regularly visited us in Ireland from the London Embassy.
PHILIPPINE CONSULATE GENERAL IN NEW YORK
Mario L. de Leon Jr. Consul General of the Republic of the Philippines in New York
On 1 March 2011, the Hon. Mario Lopez de Leon, Jr. assumed his Post as the new Consul General of the Philippine Consulate General New York, with consular jurisdiction over Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The incoming Consul General most recently served as the Philippine Ambassador to South Africa. His previous assignment include serving as: Minister and Consul General, Philippine Embassy, London, United Kingdom (March 2000 - December 2006); Consul and Member, Investment Promotions Unit, Philippine Consulate General, New York (June 1993 - January 1997); Third Secretary then Second Secretary, Philippine Mission to the United Nations, New York (August 1990 - May 1993); Vice Consul, Philippine Consulate General, San Francisco (August 1989 - July 1990).
UK NEWS.
IMMIGRANTS 'WRONGLY PAID BENEFITS'
ABOVE: Chris Grayling said he was shocked to find the current system does not record the nationality of ben
20th January 2012
Benefits are wrongly being paid to more than 5,000 immigrants with no right to claim state help, research carried out by the Government suggests.
They are among some 371,000 arrivals to this country on welfare identified by an exercise to match benefit, border control and tax records for the first time.
Records are not kept of the nationality of benefit claimants in what ministers described as a "scandalous omission" by the previous Labour administration. The Government plans to begin doing so when Universal Credit is introduced from 2013.
The data-matching project found 371,000 working-age benefit claimants were non-UK nationals when they first applied for a National Insurance number, 258,000 of them from outside the European Economic Area.
So far, detailed work has been done only on a sample of 9,000 of the latter group - three quarters of whose records were able to be matched. It found 54% were now British citizens and most others had an immigration status that allowed welfare claims.
But two in every 100 appeared to have "no lawful immigration status", the work by the Department for Work and Pensions, UK Border Agency and HM Revenue and Customs found. Around 125 cases are now under investigation.
Employment minister Chris Grayling said: "We will root out those claimants who can not prove their immigration status and in turn they will be stripped of their benefits. I was shocked to discover that the current system does not record the nationality of benefit claimants and we are urgently taking steps to make sure we know exactly how many non-UK nationals are claiming UK benefits."
Immigration minister Damian Green said: "These findings uncover a worrying issue we have inherited, which is why we've ordered urgent work to pursue claimants suspected of abuse and to withdraw their benefits if they cannot prove they are entitled to claim."
Chris Bryant, shadow immigration minister, said: "Far from strengthening immigration control the Government is returning fewer illegal migrants and net migration has continued to increase. And at the same time increasing numbers of people born here and abroad are on out-of-work benefits because the government's failure on the economy has pushed unemployment up."
Robert Oxley, campaign manager of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "With billions at stake the proper controls need to be in place to prevent benefit tourism from swallowing up taxpayers' money. Taxpayers will rightly worry that the rules designed to prevent benefit tourists are steadily being eroded by a meddlesome EU, leaving Britain to pick up a bigger welfare bill than it needs to."
DAILY MAIL NEWSPAPER IN UK
SOMALIS WHO DEMANDED £8,000 A MONTH HOME
Sayida Khaliif, wife of Saeed Khaliif, at the £2m house she shares with members of her Somalian family
Somali asylum seeker Saeed Khaliif was given a £2million home in one of the country's most exclusive neighbourhoods at the taxpayer's expense.
The 49-year-old was granted housing benefits of almost £8,000 a month to live in the six- bedroom property with his wife Sayida and children.
The unemployed couple demanded to be moved to West Hampstead, north-west London, after deciding their home in the Midlands was inadequate.
The payments, revealed last year, are among the largest ever given in housing benefit.
Their new home has a 90ft garden and has been recently refurbished, with an en suite master bedroom and modern kitchen.
It is minutes from West Hampstead Underground station and the neighbourhood is home to comedian Stephen Fry.
It is understood Mr Khaliif has up to eight children and lives on benefits. He has not worked since arriving here three years ago.
Sought-after: The Khaliffs' new home in West Hampstead
It is understood the family left £600 worth of damage to their old home in Coventry and did not pay the final month's rent.
Housing benefit was recently capped at £400 a week, but the Khaliifs were able to claim more because they moved before the change came into force.
According to property sources, the house was being advertised to rent at £7,800 per month.
Logged
Author
Saturday, 14 January 2012 13:28 | 
Last Updated on Saturday, 14 January 2012 14:07 | 
Written by rome | 
del.icio.us