Offload overload

FLYING CEBPAC to Phuket with the boys this weekend.

The excitement boils over the prospects of at last getting to Phang Nga Bay and going 007, yeah, as in “Bond, James Bond” in the eponymous island popularised in the Roger Moore starrer The Man with the Golden Gun. Wishfully with as much luck as Her Majesty’s secret agent with all those girls in those itsy-bitsy teenie-weenie not necessarily yellow polka dot bikinis.

Ah, the life – oyni’ng bie, as Deng Pangilinan is wont to shout.

Only to be brought down to earth by this piece of news – really now, no news is good news: BI requires all tourists proof of financial capability to travel

Travel-loving cash-challenged newsmen, beware:

“From now on, no Filipino travelling as tourist will be allowed to leave the country unless he can show proof of financial capability to travel, proof of work and financial support from benefactors.

The Bureau of Immigration (BI) on Friday (March 14) issued strict guidelines designed to deter the exodus of undocumented Overseas Foreign Workers (OFWs) by making the said blanket requirement for all who travel as tourists.”

So should we be bringing to the airport our latest bank statements, car registrations, land titles as “proof of financial capability to travel”?

This sounds more like applying for a US visa. 

Should we also take with us, in addition to our press IDs, our contracts of employment, SSS or GSIS cards, our latest pay slips as “proof of work”?

This sounds more like getting a dreaded date with Kim Henares.

And a certification too from whoever is sponsoring our trip, down to those who handed us the usual pabaon?

Now, this is more like channelling the Yolanda victims after a Dinky Soliman debriefing.   

No, the BI did not specify what concrete proofs tourists needed to present at their counters to allow seamless passage to the airport tubes.

However one looks at it though, the BI order infringes on the fundamental right to travel, to wit: Section 6, Article III – The Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution states “…Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.” No clause there on financial interest, see?

The explosion of netizens’ outrage slammed the brakes on the BI overdrive, forcing it to full reverse.

On Saturday, abs-cbnnews.com headlined No need to prove financial capacity when traveling abroad, BI says

“Filipinos who wish to travel abroad either as tourists or overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) are not required to show proof of financial capacity before they are allowed to leave, the Bureau of Immigration (BI) clarified on Saturday.

In a statement, BI chief Siegfred Mison said financial capacity is not a requisite before a citizen is allowed to enter or leave the country…

Those who wish to travel abroad only need to present their complete travel documents, particularly their passport and other documents issued by a foreign country such as a tourist or working visa, before they are allowed to leave…

He said a Filipino citizen who will travel abroad as a tourist must present complete documents such as his airplane ticket, which is usually a two-way or round trip ticket, an authentic passport, and a proof that he has a place to stay in the country where he intends to go.

CebPac eticket, check. Passport, check. Sunset Beach Resort 316/2 Phrabaramee Road, T. Patong, A. Kathu, Phuket 83150, Tel.+66 76 342 482, check.

Hurrah! Phuket, here we come!

According to Mison, a person may only be asked to present further proof as to the reason for his travel abroad if he appears to have a different reason other than what he has declared before an immigration official.

Ay, there’s the rub, highlighted, for effect.

For one, appearances are deceiving. The very financially able Deng Pangilinan prefers very pedestrian, even campesino, get-up of shirts, shorts and slippers in his periodic tours of Asia. So that makes a fake tourist and a prospective undocumented OFW out of him?

Two, the deceivers make appearances of upholding the law. When in fact it is some quick buck they’re withholding from their offloaded victims. The BI has not exactly come off clean as Caesar’s wife in the public eye. 

Yeah, as the BI is not exactly money-proofed, what right has it to ask the proof of money from every traveller under pain of being offloaded?

Offloading, Mison says, “is not a policy but a consequence of the implementation of the Guidelines." Referring to the "Guidelines on Departure Formalities for Internationally Bound Passengers," he said was formulated by a technical working group in accordance with Republic Act 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, and approved by the Department of Justice, with effectivity starting in January 2012.

In effect, Mison said, offloading is some preventive measure locked on Filipinos that leave the country posing as tourists but with the intention of looking for work in the country where they intend to go.

"We don't offload people just because we want to. It's a bitter pill that we have to swallow because we want to protect our fellow Filipinos."

The portal where this story appeared nearly got an overload from netizens crying they’ve been arbitrarily offloaded. And I readily join their cry, having experienced this first hand. As I’ve written here of my son Jonathan offloaded at the Clark International Airport on his return flight to Hong Kong in August 2012:

The Bi agents asked Jonathan the purpose of his travel.

Jonathan said he worked in Hong Kong and just had a vacation here.

Proof of employment?

Jonathan presented 1) his contract with Manulife Financial (Hong Kong) as actuarial specialist “on loan” from Manulife Philippines, his principal employer, and 2) his Hong Kong resident ID card.

In a previous vacation, only last April, those documents were enough for immigration to stamp his passport, allowing him to fly.

But not this time. The immigration agent asked him to produce his Manulife Philippines ID which Jonathan had to retrieve from his checked-in luggage.

So, that ID was presented. Only for Jonathan to be told that he needed some “OEC” from the POEA. This, as some positive confirmation of his work contract kuno.

End result: No flight.     

So, since when was this OEC from POEA made a requisite for travel abroad?

So why didn’t the immigration agents just tell my son of that requirement at the onset?

If this is not harassment, it could only be idiocy.

So what is this Mison saying again?

"Under our BI C.A.R.E.S (Courtesy-Accountability-Responsibility-Efficiency-Service) Program, we want our countrymen to understand that there is no reason to fear us, in fact they can ask us for advice on how to legitimize their travel and we will be happy to help."

Per experience, actual and virtual, the more appropriate acronym is BI S.C.A.R.E (Bureau of Immigration: Scheming-Cantankerous-Arrogant-Rapacious-Employees).