POSSIBLE POINTS: REBUTTAL

NON-NECESSITY

A. PARTIAL POLICE POWER - The police power is simply defined as the power
DEPLOYMENT BAN inherent in the State to regulate liberty and PROPERTY for the promotion
ONLY, TOTAL BAN of the general welfare.
WOULD BE
INTRUSIVE Employment – property subject to regulation

Lawful Subject – There is lawful subject considering that the gov’t

should look out for the welfare of the migrant workers.

Lawful Means – The means is lawful. Total deployment ban is reasonably

necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.

In fact, in the well-recognized Crisis Alert Level by the Philippine

Department of Foreign Affairs, ban on deployment of newly hired OFW is
only on Level 2. Crisis Alert Level recognizes that the Philippine
government can also restrict deployment of Filipino workers to countries
determined by DFA to be non-compliant to the Republic Act 10022 also
known as Amended Migrant Workers Act.

1 "Precautionary phase", No deployment ban

2 "Restriction phase" and ban on deployment of newly hired Overseas
Filipino Workers only
3 Voluntary repatriation and total ban on deployment of Overseas
Filipino Workers
4 Mandatory repatriation and total ban on deployment of Overseas
Filipino Workers

B. PARTIAL EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

DEPLOYMENT BAN
ONLY TO COVER No substantial distinction to classify HSW from professional, skilled or
HSW, OTHER other workers.
WORKERS ARE NOT
AFFECTED, HENCE The concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern
SHOULD NOT BE impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely
INCLUDED IN THE on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.
BAN (Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission )

Yes, there HSW and professional workers may have different job nature,
but in view of the government objective to protect the OFWs, it is not
proper to make any distinction herein.

To be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial

distinctions which make for real differences; (b) must be germane to the
purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only;
and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class.

C. WE CAN ACHIEVE The negative side fails to recognize that the RISK IS PRESENT TO ALL
CHANGES EVEN WORKERS, NOT ONLY THE HSWs. What may have been highlighted are
WITH PARTIAL BAN the unfortunate deaths of HSWs, but abuses are present even in skilled
and professional workers including contract violation, contract
substitution, and maltreatment. True enough, the number of abuses may
be lower than the HSWs, but abuses are abuses. We cannot simply turn
blind eye to these abuses and violations in working conditions simply
because they are lower in number.
 The government has the duty and obligation to protect its citizens
without distinction and discrimination.

D. NO DEPLOYMENT You cannot simply say that these are isolated cases. In fact, there are
BAN, THE 185 deaths in Kuwait from 2016-2017, and the common causes of these
DEMAFELIS AND deaths are maltreatment, abuses, illness from being forced to work.
VILLAVENDE CASES
ARE ISOLATED
CASES

POSSIBLE POINTS: REBUTTAL

NON-BENEFICIALITY

A. DEPRIVE There is no deprivation of right here. Employment has now leveled off
PROFESSIONAL/SKILLED as property rights (ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES vs. NLRC) and property
AND OTHER WORKERS rights can be regulated by the government.
FROM EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES Besides, the total deployment ban is not permanent, but only
temporary to make way for Kuwait and Philippines to create better
mechanisms for the protection of migrant workers.

Moreover, those who are already working in Kuwait are not included
in the deployment ban, hence they may still continue working in
Kuwait subject to the completion of their contract.

B. ADVERSELY AFFECT Contrary to the fears of the negative side, there will be no adverse
ECONOMY IN TERMS OF effect to the economy. Again, the total ban is only temporary. There
OFW REMITTANCE are still other employment opportunities for those who want to work
overseas.

If we are to continue sending workers overseas despite the

problematic system, it is as if we are putting more premium to
money over the lives of the Filipino people. This should not be the
case.

C. MAY AFFECT KUWAIT- This will not be the case since the proposition recognizes the joint
PHIL RELATIONSHIP action of Kuwait and Philippines in creating a better and safer
working environment for Filipino migrant workers.

The total deployment ban is not for the purpose of blaming the
government of Kuwait for the abuses against the Filipino workers,
but aims to create a period where both governments can work out
possible solutions for the problem at hand.
 POSSIBLE POINTS: REBUTTAL
NON-PRACTICABILITY

A. PARTIAL DEPLOYMENT
BAN ONLY, TOTAL BAN See Non-Necessity answer
WOULD BE INTRUSIVE

B. PARTIAL DEPLOYMENT See Non-Necessity answer

BAN ONLY TO COVER
HSW, OTHER WORKERS
ARE NOT AFFECTED,
HENCE SHOULD NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THE BAN

C. MOST TOTAL The well-recognized Crisis Alert Level by the Philippine Department
DEPLOYMENT BAN ONLY of Foreign Affairs may have been used for count
INCLUDES COUNTRIES
WITH PEACE AND ban on deployment of newly hired OFW is only on Level 2. Crisis
ORDER PROBLEMS, ONE Alert Level recognizes that the Philippine government can also
THAT IS OF restrict deployment of Filipino workers to countries determined by
GREATER/BIGGER DFA to be non-compliant to the Republic Act 10022 also known as
SCOPE Amended Migrant Workers Act.

1 "Precautionary phase", No deployment ban

2 "Restriction phase" and ban on deployment of newly hired
Overseas Filipino Workers only
3 Voluntary repatriation and total ban on deployment of Overseas
Filipino Workers
4 Mandatory repatriation and total ban on deployment of Overseas
Filipino Workers