The Commission on Audit flagged the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration or OWWA’s repatriation of 3,707 overseas Filipino during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, who were reportedly not eligible under the agency’s emergency repatriation program.
In its 2022 report, state auditors discovered that from April 2020 to May 2022, the OWWA’s Regional Welfare Office 10 (Northern Mindanao) allowed 3,707 OFWs to avail of emergency repatriation more than once, ranging from two to five times in 26 months.
Of the total, 3,250 or 88 percent of these individuals are sea-based, according to CoA.
The audit body cast doubt on the eligibility of the overseas workers to qualify as OFWs in distress and noted that expenses incurred during their regular trips back to the country breached Section 2 of Presidential Decree 1445, depleting scarce government resources.
CoA said OWWA spent funds on the OFWs’ airfare, accommodation, meals, and land transportation that they should have shouldered themselves.
It was not known how much the total amount disbursed for the OFWs’ repatriation was.
“It appeared that the repatriation program was utilized by these OFWs for their regular trips back home after their contracts expired and not from distress as can be gleaned by the number of times these OFWs availed of the program,” CoA said.
Section 2 of PD 1445, or the State Audit Code of the Philippines, states that all government resources shall be “managed, expended or utilized in accordance with law and regulations and safeguarded against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition.”
According to CoA, the personnel in charge of the program informed them that the OWWA’s central office gave the go-signal to allow the said OFWs to avail of the emergency repatriation. The personnel could not even explain the criteria for assessing their eligibility as distressed OFWs.
“The Regional Offices only receive these OFWs to facilitate their accommodation, meals, and land transportation to their respective destinations,” the program head was quoted as having told auditors.
While the CoA acknowledged the arduous role of the OWWA in ensuring that distressed OFWs during the pandemic are accorded proper assistance, it said the improper evaluation of OFWs availing of the program may have a detrimental outcome on its effectiveness.
The expenses incurred for the emergency repatriation of the 3,707 OFWs could have been used to accommodate eligible distressed OFWs, CoA added.
CoA then told OWWA to make representations to the central office regarding the issue to enable the policy-making body to ensure that OWWA emergency repatriation funds are expended only for eligible distressed OFWs.
OWWA, on the other hand, explained in its reply to CoA that Regional Welfare Office 10 only received OFWs who boarded via sweeper flights as communicated by the central office to facilitate and assist them with accommodation, meals, and transportation to their respective destination.