OAV REGISTRATION: AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT

KASAMA Vol. 17 No. 4 / October-November-December 2003 / Solidarity Philippines Australia Network

OAV REGISTRATION

AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT

SOME FIGURES

The two-month Overseas Absentee Voting (OAV) registration period ended on September 30, 2003. According to the OAV Secretariat of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA OAVS) the partial unofficial tally of OAV registration turnout, as of October 7, 2003 was 360,581. This is 37% of the 900,000 official OAV registration projection based on the actual provisions of the OAV Law.

From this figure, 155,384 (43%) came from the Middle East and Africa, 154, 719 (43%) from the Asia Pacific region, 37,522 (10%) from Europe and 12,956 (4%) from the Americas.

OAV Registration Facilities consisted of eighty one embassies and consulates, 3 MECO offices (Taipei, Taichung, Kaoshiung), 5 satellite registration centers (Dubai, Al Khobar, Macau, Central Hongkong and Rotterdam) and 154 field or mobile registration centers under 44 posts.

WHY THE LOW TURNOUT?

According to DFA OAVS, from the total estimate of 7.5 million overseas Filipinos, 30% of whom are minors, former Filipinos and immigrants, only 1.76M qualify as potential OAV registrants. The 975,000 target was arrived at after consideration of the actual provisions of the law plus some realities on the ground which included the following:

that the workers in the domestic service sector have limited days off and mobility;
that OFWs in specific countries may have difficulties in complying with personal registration requirements (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Hongkong, United Arab Emirates, Japan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Sabah, Italy); and
that only 30% of the OFWs reside or work within 160 kilometers from the Posts.

WHAT THE OFWS AND ADVOCATES SAY

On October 8, the Center for Migrant Advocacy Philippines (CMA-Phils) in cooperation with the DFA OAVS and the Consortium for Electoral Reforms (CER) organized a public forum to conduct an initial assessment of the OAV Registration from the perspective of the overseas Filipinos and the advocates. Initial assessment points from Hongkong, Japan, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Ireland and Europewide as well as feedbacks from Boston, New York and New Jersey and Saipan from the US were presented. The reports were contributions from the network of the International Coalition for the Overseas Filipinos Voting Rights (ICOFVR). The government was ably represented by Ms. Catherine Paredes-Maceda and Ms. Pat Rodolfo, vice chair and staff respectively of the DFA OAVS. The reports were one in attributing the following for the low turnout in the OAV registration:

Delayed passage of the law, RA 9189. It was passed only on February 13, 2003, three months behind the latest target date of November 2002, as requested by Comelec;
Delayed official promulgation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) due to a case filed with the Supreme Court questioning the authority of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee (JCOC) to approve the IRR; decision on the case was handed down only on July 10, 2003;
Shortened period of OAV registration from three months to only two months due to delays in the release of the budget and the Supreme Court decision;
Lack of sufficient and timely information on OAV coming from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC);
Sheer lack of faith, trust and confidence in the Philippine political and electoral system;
Flaws in the law, RA 9189 (requirement for personal registration, personal voting, affidavit of intent to return for immigrants and permanent residents among others);
Delayed decisions to set up mobile or field registration centers in many countries and destinations and the lack of information about them.

The seafarers' sector likewise expressed strong sentiments on the lack of consultation with them. They felt that the present OAV law was crafted only for land-based overseas Filipinos. And until certain provisions and mechanisms are put in place in consideration of the peculiar situation of seabased Filipinos, the law will remain ineffective and disenfranchising.

Overall, the overseas Filipinos strongly feel that both the Philippine legislators and the Comelec simply failed to appreciate and consider the actual situations and particularities on the ground.

WHAT IS NEXT?

Proceeding from the learnings of the two-month registration period, the urgent task now in the lead up to the 2004 elections is to identify problem areas that may be addressed through executive and administrative corrective measures to ensure better performance in the implementation and actual conduct of voting, counting and canvassing so we can have credible election results.

For succeeding elections, however, the OAV law must be amended accordingly to make it truly enfranchising for the most number of overseas Filipinos.

Ellene Sana, Center for Migrant Advocacy - Philippines
Reprinted from The Migrant Watch, Vol. 2 No. 3, September 2003 at http://www.pmrw.org