Part II NHRIs in action CASE STUDY In 2009, the Philippines Commission on Human Rights issued a comment201 on a proposed shift in the Government’s policy on overseas Filipino employment towards a more “aggressive” approach to marketing the benefits of Filipino migrant workers. The Commission raised concerns that “proper safeguards” must be “sought and institutionalised” in order to protect Filipino migrant workers and their families, in line with the Convention on Migrant Workers which the Philippines had ratified. In its comment, the Commission referred to its previous efforts to draw the attention of the UN Committee on Migrant Workers to the shift in Government policy during the treaty reporting process, as well as to the treaty body’s request that the Government ensure the protection of the rights of migrant workers. The Commission also highlighted the role of the State in providing the domestic conditions that would allow Filipinos to exercise a real choice with regards to undertaking overseas employment.202 The Commission recommended revisions to draft legislation that accompanied the change in Government policy. It called on the Government to meet its self-declared commitments, made at the Second Global Forum on Migration and Development, to encourage other states to ratify the Convention on Migrant Workers. In addition, the Commission recommended that the Government ensure that its bilateral agreements on labour issues comply with the Convention and other relevant human rights standards. 5.4. Cooperating with NHRIs in other countries 201202 There is a growing practice among NHRIs to exchange information and share their expertise in order to better promote and protect the rights of migrant workers at each stage of their journey.203 NHRIs in labour-receiving countries note that it is essential to understand the human rights context in the labour-sending country, as many issues arise before migrant workers depart their home country. This can include, for example, whether migrant workers have been provided with reliable information about the destination country and their future employers, whether they are able to register their contractual agreement or even secure a written contract, and whether their departure and intentions are known and understood by their Government. Where appropriate, NHRIs in relevant sending, transit and receiving States can develop joint plans of action to respond to identified areas of concern. They should also seek to do so in cooperation with civil society.204 201 OFW Liberalization Act of 2007: Comment from the Commission on Human Rights; Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines; 2009. 202 There are NHRI guidelines on this point. For example: the Seoul Guidelines states that NHRIs should undertake actions in relation to migrant workers for “...enhancing the right to change employer, especially in cases of exploitative or otherwise unjust working conditions”; para. 35. Further, the ILO Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (C-122) requires Member States to develop a policy framework “as a major goal” to promote “full, productive, and freely chosen work”: article 1 (1). 203 For example, through establishing Memoranda of Understanding with other NHRIs or through the joint activities of the South East Asia National Human Rights Institutions Forum (SEANF) and the APF. 204 Santa Cruz Declaration; 8th International Conference of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; Santa Cruz, Republic of Bolivia; 24–26 October 2006; para. 21. Chapter 6: Promoting reform of law, policy and practice | 79