Correspondence
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed two contact email addresses for the Department of Migrant Workers.
The email said: "My name is Gaea Cabico — I am a journalist with Philstar.com. In collaboration with journalist Jake Conley and The Outlaw Ocean Project, Jake and I have spent the last seven months developing a report on the DMW’s responses to distressed OFWs and its adherence to Philippine law surrounding the protection of OFWs. We seek to provide a fair opportunity for response to our findings and any allegations made by sources we have spoken with, and as such we would like to offer the DMW the chance to confirm, refute and/or comment on our research, which you’ll find laid out below, including statistical/informational questions for the DMW, also laid out below. Please feel free to engage with any questions you may have for us.
We would like to provide you with adequate time to respond to the below points and questions. Therefore, our deadline for your responses to the below points/questions is at the end of the day, Thursday, July 13.
–Through 2019, 2020 and 2021, one OFW we spoke with, who worked as a fisher, traversed several different vessels as he worked abroad as a fisher. On his last vessel, the Han Rong 366, he alleges he and his fellow Filipino crew members were abandoned by their manning agency, which prompted them to reach out the DMW for help. According to our sources’ accounts and information from contemporaneous news reports and civil society reports, crew members of other nationalities were repatriated from the vessel by their governments as early as June 2021, whereas the Filipino crew were not repatriated from the vessel until December 2021, despite repeated cries for help over the preceding months. A report from Migrante International alleges that the Philippines’ Dept. of Foreign Affairs was aware of the crew’s plight as early as August 2021. Can the DMW confirm whether the DFA was aware of the crew’s plight in August 2021, and that the crew members were repatriated in early December 2021 (as seen in this media report)? As well, would the DMW like to comment on or refute this account of the events that transpired?
–The manning agency “Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency” was noted in a report from The Guardian published in 2015 as being involved in trafficking OFWs and placing the Filipino workers in jobs where multiple labor abuses occurred. A March 2023 press release from the DMW states that Diamond H was also involved in the alleged trafficking of a group of Filipino workers who were allegedly made to work under abusive conditions on fishing vessels off the coast of Namibia. Today, according to DMW records, Diamond H is operating under a valid license. Would the DMW like to comment on any actions taken against Diamond H in the previous eight years, and on what action may be taken against Diamond H if the forced labor case the DMW has endorsed finds that the agency was involved in forced labor schemes? Would the DMW like to refute any of the above?
–The DMW has a quite robust system in place for licensing recruitment/manning agencies designed to protect OFWs from abuse. Separately, language in the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers states, “The Administration shall monitor the compliance of licensed manning agencies with the conditions for the issuance of license, recruitment laws, rules and regulations on the use of license, and general labor standards and occupational safety and health standards in coordination with the DOLE Regional Office.” Additionally, language in the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers states, “The Assessment shall be conducted prior to the following: issuance of a license (post qualification assessment), upgrading of provisional license to a regular license, issuance of branch authority, renewal of license and branch authority, and transfer of office. The Assessment shall also be conducted once every two (2) years after renewal of license.” However, several academics, advocates and lawyers have alleged that in many cases, regular check-ins and post-licensing monitoring of manning/recruitment agencies’ workings (widely referring to the assessments every two years) — to ensure that all relevant Philippine laws are being followed and that OFWs are not finding themselves in situations of labor abuse or economic exploitation — have not always occurred. Would the DMW like to comment on the agency’s approach to post-licensing check-ins and monitoring of the operations of manning/recruitment agencies and the conditions of OFWs abroad? Would the DMW like to refute any of the above?
–Does the DMW conduct random assessments of manning agencies/recruitment agencies separately from salvo/spot inspections “in response to a complaint or report of illegal recruitment activities and recruitment violations” (2016 Revised POEA Rules)?
–In what way does the DMW work with the NLRC if and when labor abuse/wage exploitation cases are filed with the NLRC by OFWs?
–Republic Act No. 11641 created the AKSYON fund, with the stated purpose being to “provide legal, medical, financial, and other forms of assistance to Overseas Filipino Workers, including repatriation, shipment of remains, evacuation, rescue, and any other analogous help or intervention to protect the rights of Filipino nationals.” Since the fund’s creation, how much money has been disbursed to provide the above aid, and in how many cases? Additionally, would the DMW like to comment on how these funds will be used going forward?
–In July 2022, the Philippines launched its “One Repatriation Command Center,” with the stated goal being to “facilitate, monitor, and document the repatriation of distressed OFWs in coordination with relevant government agencies, private sector, and concerned stakeholders,” according to an article from the Philippine Information Agency. Since its founding, how many OFW repatriation cases has the ORCC worked with, and how many OFWs has it worked with?
–When an OFW calls the One Repat-DMW hotline seeking repatriation, what does the process look like from that point on?
–Would the POEA/DMW like to comment on the impetus for founding the ORCC?
–An article from the Philippine Information Agency about the ORCC quotes DMW Secretary Susan Ople as saying, “The One Repat-DMW will help ensure that distressed OFWs are given immediate assistance and are able to come home to their families and loved ones.” Can the DMW comment on how it defines “immediate assistance” and what an ideal timeline for repatriation would look like, and would it like to refute any of the above?
–As of July 3, 2023, the Philippines has not ratified the International Labour Organization’s 2007 Work in Fishing Convention (C188). Would the DMW like to comment on why the country has chosen to not ratify the convention, and would it like to refute any of the above? Philippine law allows manning agencies to continue to operate while labor rights cases are adjudicated against them. It also allows the DMW to renew a manning agency’s license while the agency has standing complaints against it (Section 16 of the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers) and to renew a principal/employer’s license while the principal has standing complaints against it (Section 96 of the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers). Academic experts have told us they’ve seen this happen in many cases. Would the DMW like to comment on this practice, and would it like to refute any of the above?
–Several experts have alleged that while the DMW may deregister or suspend a manning/recruitment agency’s license, the same owners will reopen under a new name, or under the same company name with new directors, acting again as they were before deregistration or suspension. This would run counter to language in the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers saying, “The following persons and entities are disqualified to participate or engage in the recruitment and placement of seafarers for overseas employment ... Sole proprietors, partners or officers and members of the board with derogatory records, such as, but not limited to the following:
- Those convicted, or against whom probable cause or prima facie finding of guilt is determined by a competent authority, for illegal recruitment, or for other related crimes or offenses committed in the course of, related to, or resulting from, illegal recruitment, or for crimes involving moral turpitude;
- Those agencies whose licenses have been revoked for violation of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended, PD 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines), as amended, and RA 9208 (Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as amended, and their implementing rules and regulations;
- Those agencies whose licenses have been cancelled, or those who, pursuant to the Order of the Administrator, were included in the list of persons with derogatory record for violation of recruitment laws;” Would the DMW like to comment on the frequency it sees this happen, if at all, and on what systems are in place to prevent this from occurring, if any? Would the DMW like to refute any of the above?
–Can the Philippine government provide statistics, by year, of the number of OFWs who have been employed abroad as seafarers in each of the last five years (2018 - 2022, or 2017 - 2021, if 2022 data not available) and, separately, the number of OFWs who have been employed abroad as fishers in each of the last five years (2018 - 2022, or 2017 - 2021, if 2022 data not available)?
As stated above, please feel free to respond with any comments or questions. Our deadline for responses to the above points is, as stated above, Thursday, July 13.
Thank you"
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed the Department of Migrant Workers: "Hello,
I'm adding two additional points and questions for you to comment on: –According to the legal accounting filed with the NLRC, in the case of one OFW we're writing about, the OFW died aboard a fishing vessel where he was placed by his principal, AMBBS Shipping Management. The vessel the OFW died on, however, did not appear anywhere on his original contract, which we have reviewed. His contract had said he would be working as a messman aboard a cargo vessel, not as a fisher on a fishing vessel. This would violate DMW policies requiring transparency of placement labor type and location by principals and manning agencies, as well as DMW policies around contract approval and transparency. Can the DMW / would the DMW like to comment on this kind of contract switching, and on what steps it has in place to prevent this, if any?
–The EU-funded Ship to Shore Rights South East Asia — which seeks to improve working conditions for migrant workers in the fisheries sector — commenced in the Philippines in 2021. A national working plan on the implementation of existing rules and regulations related to work in fishing and development of destination-specific pre-departure information for migrant fishers was approved in meetings attended by the POEA. Since the start of project implementation two years ago, what progress has been made by the DMW to improve working conditions for migrant fishers?
Thank you, Gaea"
The Department of Migrant Workers emailed The Outlaw Ocean Project and said: "Good day! This is an acknowledgement receipt to your email. We will forward your email to our Director IV for his reference. Once feedback is available, we will immediately notify you through email. Thank you and stay safe."
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed the Department of Migrant Workers: "Good day! Thank you! We’re looking forward to receiving DMW’s response on or before July 21, Friday. Thank you."
Department of Migrant Workers Undersecretary Bernard Olalia spoke with The Outlaw Ocean Project and said that the Department is focused on providing Filipino citizens working abroad with assistance and pointed to the One Repatriation Command Center, established in 2021. He also said the Department has policies in place to prevent companies from "phoenixing," and that it conducts routine unannounced inspections on manning agencies to make sure they are compliant with Philippine labor law. When asked about manning agencies that had been charged with labor crimes yet were still allowed to operate and recruit workers, Olalia said that "unfortunately," Philippine law allows the manning agencies to continue functioning while an investigation is ongoing. Olalia said that the Department requires testimony of mistreatment to come directly from workers because Philippine law requires a sworn statement from the worker and the details only the worker can provide.
Olalia said the Department does not discriminate berween seafarers and fishers in providing aid, adding that because the Philippines has so many citizens working abroad, it must prioritize certain groups and situations over others and make decisions about where to allocate resources. Olalia said the abandonment of crew aboard the Han Rong 366 was a "very unfortunate incident."
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed the Department of Migrant Workers:
"My name is Gaea Cabico — I am a journalist with Philstar.com. In collaboration with journalist Jake Conley and The Outlaw Ocean Project, Jake and I have spent the last seven months developing a report on the DMW’s responses to distressed OFWs and its adherence to Philippine law surrounding the protection of OFWs. We seek to provide a fair opportunity for response to our findings and any allegations made by sources we have spoken with, and as such we would like to offer the DMW the chance to confirm, refute and/or comment on our research, which you’ll find laid out below, including statistical/informational questions for the DMW, also laid out below. Please feel free to engage with any questions you may have for us.
We would like to provide you with adequate time to respond to the below points and questions. Therefore, our deadline for your responses to the below points/questions is at the end of the day, Friday, July 21. Additionally, please confirm you have received this email.
— Through 2019, 2020 and 2021, one OFW we spoke with named Nante Maglangit (NLRC case no. OFW (M) 02-01010-22) traversed several different vessels as he worked abroad as a fisher (for which his manning agency was Global Marine and Offshore Resources, and his principal was Jenn Yih Song Seafood). On his last vessel, the Han Rong 366, he alleges he and his fellow Filipino crew members were abandoned by their manning agency, which prompted them to reach out the DMW for help. According to our sources’ accounts and information from contemporaneous news reports and civil society reports, crew members of other nationalities were repatriated from the vessel by their governments as early as June 2021, whereas the Filipino crew were not repatriated from the vessel until December 2021, despite repeated cries for help over the preceding months. A report from Migrante International (attached as PDF as well in linked Drive folder: "Families Demand the Rescue and Repatriation of 29 Filipino Stranded Seafarers on Board the FV Han Rong 362, 366 and 369 - Migrante International") alleges that the Philippines’ Dept. of Foreign Affairs was aware of the crew’s plight as early as August 2021. Maglangit was later found to be entitled to back wages from Global Marine and Offshore Resources and Jenn Yih Song Seafood by the NLRC. Can the DMW confirm whether the DFA was aware of the crew’s plight in August 2021, and that the crew members were repatriated in early December 2021 (as seen in this media report (attached as PDF as well in linked Drive folder: "JP Soriano - LOOK/ 6 of 29 Filipino seafarers onboard the... | Facebook"))? As well, would the DMW like to comment on or refute this account of the events that transpired?
— According to the documents filed with the NLRC, in the case of one OFW we're writing about (NLRC case no. OFW (M) 02-00070-22) named Juan Cernal Jr., Cernal died aboard a fishing vessel, the Pu Yuan 768 (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Juan Cernal Report of Death"), where he was placed by his principal, AMBBS Shipping Management, after being told he would be working in Singapore (attached as PDFs in linked Drive folder: "Position Paper 1" through "Position Paper 9"). His DOLE Overseas Employment Certificate included in the NLRC filings listed Able Maritime Seafarers as his manning agency, AMBBS Management as his principal and the Gita No. 3 as the vessel he would be working on (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "DOLE Overseas Employment Certificate"). However, Cernal’s Pre-Departure Orientation Seminar Certificate of Attendance from Able Maritime Seafarers says Cernal would be working as a messman in Peru (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Able Maritime Seafarers, Pre Departure Orientation Seminar Certificate of Attendance"). Further still, on Cernal's Pre-Departure Orientation Seminar Certificate of Attendance from the Overseas Placement Association of the Philippines (provided to his sister after his death), his manning agency is listed as Global Marine and Offshore Resources, his principal is listed as Jenn Yih Song Seafood, and his destination is listed as Hong Kong (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Overseas Placement Association of the Philippines, Pre-departure Orientation Seminar Certificate of Attendance"). But in letters to airport staff and others, Able Maritime Seafarers says Cernal’s destination is Peru and that his principal is Maritima Oceanic S.A.C., not AMBBS Management, nor that his destination is Singapore or Hong Kong (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Able Maritime Seafarers, Guarantee Letter"); additionally, a letter to airport staff from Maritima Oceanica S.A.C. also says Cernal's destination is Peru (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Maritima Oceanica S.A.C., Letter of Guarantee"). As well, the Pu Yuan 768 did not appear anywhere on Cereal’s DOLE Overseas Employment Certificate — his DOLE Overseas Employment Certificate had said he would be working as a messman aboard a cargo vessel, the Gita No. 3, not as a fisher on a fishing vessel (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "DOLE Overseas Employment Certificate"). The NLRC filings in this case, filed by Cernal’s family’s lawyer, allege that all of these changes from the original contract were not communicated to Cernal until after he had left the Philippines (attached as PDFs in linked Drive folder: "Position Paper 1" through "Position Paper 9"). Much of this may violate DMW policies requiring transparency of placement labor type and location by principals and manning agencies, as well as DMW policies around contract approval and transparency. Can the DMW / would the DMW like to comment on what happened to Juan Cernal Jr, on this kind of contract/employment switching, and on what steps the Department has in place to prevent this, if any? Is this set-up of multiple manning agencies, principals and destinations for one seafarer on one deployment common?
— The manning agency “Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping Agency" was noted in a report from The Guardian (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Revealed/ trafficked migrant workers abused in Irish fishing industry | Migration and development | The Guardian") published in 2015 as being involved in trafficking OFWs and placing the Filipino workers in jobs where multiple labor abuses occurred. A March 2023 press release from the DMW (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Department of Migrant Workers press release") states that Diamond H was also involved in the alleged trafficking of a group of Filipino workers who were allegedly made to work under abusive conditions on fishing vessels off the coast of Namibia. Today, according to DMW records, Diamond H is operating under a valid license. Would the DMW like to comment on any actions taken against Diamond H in the previous eight years, and on what action may be taken against Diamond H if the forced labor case the DMW has endorsed finds that the manning agency was involved in forced labor schemes? Would the DMW like to refute any of the above?
— The DMW has a quite robust system in place for licensing recruitment/manning agencies designed to protect OFWs from abuse. Following licensing, language in the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers states, “The Administration shall monitor the compliance of licensed manning agencies with the conditions for the issuance of license, recruitment laws, rules and regulations on the use of license, and general labor standards and occupational safety and health standards in coordination with the DOLE Regional Office” (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "2016 REVISED POEA RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF SEAFARERS") . Additionally, language in the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "2016 REVISED POEA RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF SEAFARERS") states, “The Assessment shall be conducted prior to the following: issuance of a license (post qualification assessment), upgrading of provisional license to a regular license, issuance of branch authority, renewal of license and branch authority, and transfer of office. The Assessment shall also be conducted once every two (2) years after renewal of license.” However, several academics, advocates and lawyers have alleged that in many cases, regular check-ins and post-licensing monitoring of manning/recruitment agencies’ workings (widely referring to the assessments every two years) — to ensure that all relevant Philippine laws are being followed and that OFWs are not finding themselves in situations of labor abuse or economic exploitation — have not always occurred, whether due to lack of resources, lack of manpower or other reasons. Would the DMW like to comment on the agency’s approach to post-licensing check-ins and monitoring of the operations of manning/recruitment agencies and the conditions of OFWs abroad? Would the DMW like to refute any of the above?
— Does the DMW conduct random assessments of manning agencies/recruitment agencies separately from salvo/spot inspections “in response to a complaint or report of illegal recruitment activities and recruitment violations” (attached as PDF in linked drive folder: "2016 REVISED POEA RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF SEAFARERS")?
— In what way does the DMW work with the NLRC if and when labor abuse/wage exploitation cases are filed with the NLRC by OFWs or their familes/legal representation?
— Republic Act No. 11641 (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "Department of Migrant Workers Act") created the AKSYON fund, with the stated purpose being to “provide legal, medical, financial, and other forms of assistance to Overseas Filipino Workers, including repatriation, shipment of remains, evacuation, rescue, and any other analogous help or intervention to protect the rights of Filipino nationals.” Since the fund’s creation, how much money has been disbursed to provide the above aid, and in how many cases? Additionally, would the DMW like to comment on how these funds will be used going forward?
— In July 2022, the Philippines launched its “One Repatriation Command Center,” with the stated goal being to “facilitate, monitor, and document the repatriation of distressed OFWs in coordination with relevant government agencies, private sector, and concerned stakeholders,” according to an article from the Philippine Information Agency (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "PIA - Better, responsive welfare aid for distressed OFWs at One Repatriation Command Center"). Since its founding, how many OFW repatriation cases has the ORCC worked with, and how many OFWs has it worked with?
— When an OFW calls the One Repat-DMW hotline seeking repatriation, what does the assistance and/or repatriation process look like from that point on?
— Would the POEA/DMW like to comment on the impetus for founding the ORCC?
— The same article from the Philippine Information Agency mentioned above (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "PIA - Better, responsive welfare aid for distressed OFWs at One Repatriation Command Center") about the ORCC quotes DMW Secretary Susan Ople as saying, “The One Repat-DMW will help ensure that distressed OFWs are given immediate assistance and are able to come home to their families and loved ones.” Can the DMW comment on how it defines “immediate assistance” and what an ideal timeline for repatriation would look like, and would it like to refute any of the above?
— As of July 12, 2023, the Philippines has not ratified the International Labour Organization’s 2007 Work in Fishing Convention (C188). Can the DMW / would the DMW like to comment on why the country has chosen to not ratify the convention, and would it like to refute any of the above?
— Philippine law allows the DMW to renew a manning agency’s license while the agency has pending recruitment violations cases if an additional escrow deposit is submitted (Section 16 of the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "2016 REVISED POEA RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF SEAFARERS"))and to renew a principal/employer’s license while the principal has standing complaints against it if an additional escrow deposit is submitted (Section 96 of the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (attached as PDF in linked Drive folder: "2016 REVISED POEA RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF SEAFARERS")). Academic experts have told us they’ve seen this happen in many cases. Can the DMW / would the DMW like to comment on this practice, and on whether it may allow wrongdoing to continue while cases and violations are adjudicated in court? Can the DMW / would the DMW like to refute any of the above?
— Several experts have alleged that while the DMW may deregister or suspend a manning/recruitment agency’s license for illegal recruitment, crimes relating to illegal recruitment or violation of labor codes and recruitment laws, the same owners will often reopen a manning/recruitment agency under a new name, or under the same company name with new directors, acting again as they were before deregistration or suspension. This would appear to run counter to language in the 2016 Revised POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers (attached as PDF in Drive folder: "2016 REVISED POEA RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT OF SEAFARERS") saying, “The following persons and entities are disqualified to participate or engage in the recruitment and placement of seafarers for overseas employment ... Sole proprietors, partners or officers and members of the board with derogatory records, such as, but not limited to the following: 1. Those convicted, or against whom probable cause or prima facie finding of guilt is determined by a competent authority, for illegal recruitment, or for other related crimes or offenses committed in the course of, related to, or resulting from, illegal recruitment, or for crimes involving moral turpitude; 2. Those agencies whose licenses have been revoked for violation of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended, PD 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines), as amended, and RA 9208 (Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as amended, and their implementing rules and regulations; 3. Those agencies whose licenses have been cancelled, or those who, pursuant to the Order of the Administrator, were included in the list of persons with derogatory record for violation of recruitment laws;” Can the DMW / would the DMW like to comment on the frequency it sees this happen, if at all, and on what systems are in place to prevent this from occurring, if any? Can the DMW / would the DMW like to refute any of the above?
— Several sources from different civil society organizations and academic organizations have alleged that the manning agencies Able Maritime Seafarers, Global Marine and Offshore Resources, and Buwan Tala Manning are all connected and run by the same people/owners. While filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission do not indicate shared ownership, is the DMW aware of any shared ownership of staffing between the three agencies?
— The EU-funded Ship to Shore Rights South East Asia — which seeks to improve working conditions for migrant workers in the fisheries sector — commenced in the Philippines in 2021. A national working plan on the implementation of existing rules and regulations related to work in fishing and development of destination- specific pre-departure information for migrant fishers was approved in meetings attended by the POEA/DMW. Since the start of project implementation two years ago, what progress, if any, has been made by the DMW to meet the goals of the Ship to Shore Rights initiative?
— The ITF has alleged that the DMW does not typically accept complaints of illegal activity against fishers and seafarers by outside organizations such as the ITF, Stella Maris and Mission to Seafarers, instead only accepting them from the OFWs themselves or OFWs' next of kin. Can the DMW / would the DMW like to comment on this, and to confirm or refute the accuracy of that statement?
— Can the Philippine government provide statistics, by year, of the number of OFWs who have been employed abroad as seafarers in each of the last five years (2018 - 2022, or 2017 - 2021, if 2022 data not available) and, separately, the number of OFWs who have been employed abroad as fishers in each of the last five years (2018 - 2022, or 2017 - 2021, if 2022 data not available)?
— Can the Philippine government provide the number of recruitment violations-related cases, wage exploitation-related cases and other labor rights violations-related cases the NLRC opened in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively?
— Can the Philippine government provide the number of illegal recruitment actions and violations of Philippine law related to the treatment of OFWs by manning/recruitment agencies or employers/principals the POEA/DMW was made aware of in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively? All files mentioned are located here: REDACTED
If the above folder is inaccessible, please let me know immediately. As stated above, please feel free to respond with any comments or questions. Our deadline for responses to the above points is, as stated above, Friday, July 21.
Thank you."