Pinay claiming death threats from creditors fails to stop deportation order

Bansiles failed to bring her case to the Court of Final Appeal

By The SUN

A Filipina former domestic worker who claims to be in deathly fear of her creditors has failed in her bid to go to Hong Kong’s highest court to seek a judicial review of Immigration’s decision to deport her.

In its written judgment issued on Dec. 3, the Court of Appeal said Jamaicha Bansiles’ application failed to set out any question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.

Justices Peter Cheung, Carlyle Chu and Aarif Barma noted that leave to go to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted only if the question involved was of great general or public importance.

Bansiled had filed her leave to apply for a new leave to appeal on Oct 3, or just a week after the CA ruled that there were no reasons to disturb Judge Bruno Chan’s rejection of her grounds for the intended judicial review.

The CA said Bansiles’ claim was not reasonably arguable and had no prospect of success.

Among Bantiles’ claims was that the Director had ignored “overwhelming evidence of violence against minorities,” that he had been biased, and had relied merely on country of origin information and not on her actual situation.

Bansiles, who came to Hong Kong in November 2006 to work as a domestic worker, remained and overstayed her visa after she was fired in April 2007. She was arrested by the police on Mar 15, 2009.

She filed a torture claim in 2009, but the director rejected it in October 2012 and her appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board was refused in February 2013.  But on Oct 17, 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed a judicial review and her torture claim was sent to the director for reconsideration.



Bansiles said she feared she would be harmed or killed by two people for failing to repay loans.

On Jan. 6, 2017 the Immigration director rejected Bansiles’ claim, after deciding that the risk of harm from her creditors was low. She appealed to the TCAB, but the board also refused her claim, so she went to the High Court.



On Mar 9 this year, Judge Chan dismissed the application saying the grounds were not properly supported and he was not satisfied a judicial review would succeed. 

From beauty pageants, Global Alliance shifts to livelihood training

Selomenio shakes the blues away at GA's anniversary& Christmas party

By The SUN

Global Alliance chair Leo Selomenio, who has renounced the holding of beauty pageants featuring Filipina domestic workers, says her group is shifting to livelihood projects that will showcase the talent of OFWs.

The star of “Sunday Beauty Queen”, an award-winning documentary on Hong Kong-based Filipina domestic helpers who join beauty pageants, said her 30-member alliance has proposed the holding of livelihood training courses to the Philippine Overseas Labor Office.

“Ngayong totally nag-switch out na kami sa beauty pageants, nag-shift na kami sa livelihood. May nai-propose na kami kay Labatt (Jalilo dela Torre), yung training for hairstyling, tapos yung make-up,” Selomenio told The SUN in an interview of the sidelines of Global Alliance’s third anniversary celebration on Dec 2.

She said the group already has trainers to handle the hairstyling and make-up courses.

GA has also proposed a jewelry design training and other art-related short courses that would harness the talent of Filipina helpers, Selomeno said.

“The way na kung paano naming nai-promote ang tourism, siguro sa Independence Day mag-showcase kami ng mga costumes from the Philippines through modeling lang…pero yung sabihin mong magkaron din ng beauty pageant, hindi na,” she said.

She said her group would also focus on talent-based contests similar to “Talentadong Pinoy” so that domestic workers could showcase their varied talents.

For years, Selomenio’s group had focused on holding beauty pageants for OFWs, an activity that had reaped criticism and opposition from various sectors, especially in the wake of the spread of photos from a sleazy beauty contest held in Wanchai recently.

But the success of “Sunday Beauty Queen” in the Manila Film Festival, where it won the Best Movie Award, appeared to have softened the negative the stance of Consulate officials toward beauty pageants.

That is, until pictures of the lewd Wanchai pageant held on Nov. 18 spread like wildfire on social media.

Labatt Dela Torre condemned the show as commoditizing and debasing Filipinas, and called its organizer to his office to explain why she staged the pageant. The organizer subsequently issued a public apology over the incident.

Labatt also called on corporate sponsors to withdraw support so that the contests will die a natural death.

Selomenio also slammed the show as offensive to the Filipinas’ image before announcing that GA would stop holding beauty pageants. Her decision stirred a storm that subjected her to bashing on social media by other OFW groups.

On Dec 2, however, Labatt Dela Torre congratulated GA’s decision.

“Pinupuri ko ang desisyon ng Global Alliance at ng mga member organizations nito na magbago ng direksiyon at ipatigil na itong kahiya-hiyang parte ng pagku-conduct ng beauty contest,” Labatt Dela Torre said, as he pledged POLO’s full support.

“Sisikapin ko na mabigyan kayo ng alternative, decent ways of showcasing the skills and talents of our Filipinas here in Hong Kong rather than shows that commoditize and debase our women,” he said.

He said these beauty contests are doing more harm than good to the community. “Karamihan nangungutang na lang para makasali sa beauty contests.”

Leaders of various member groups pledged their support to Global Alliance and tearfully defended the embattled Selomenio against her bashers. Corporate sponsors who attended the celebration at the Queensway Plaza rooftop also promised their continued support.

‘Disappearing’ Pinay claimant chided by Tribunal judge

The Labour Tribunal in Jordan

By Vir B. Lumicao

A Filipina helper who had launched a labor case against her former employer but could not be contacted for more than nine months, received a mouthful from a Labour Tribunal presiding officer when she finally showed up on Dec 5.

Presiding Officer Isabella Chu also warned claimant Phebe Hibulan that Immigration might look into her case since the Filipina kept applying for a visa extension using her case as an excuse when she never attended any of the earlier hearings.

Hibulan could not explain to Chu why she only sent a representative to scheduled meetings at the Labour Department with her employer, Daisy Suen in March and April, for partial settlement of her claims.

At the time, Chu said Suen had issued a check to Hipulan, but it was returned to the Labour Department as the helper could not be contacted and had no bank account.

Then Hipulan filed a case at the Labour Tribunal against Suen. But after interviews by the tribunal officer, she did not appear at hearings on May 8, June 14 and Aug 29.

The helper revived her case on Nov 12, and when she finally appeared in the tribunal, was peppered with questions by Chu.

“What have you been doing the whole year? Why were you absent from the hearings?” asked Chu, visibly irritated as the claimant only stared at her. “Why?”

“I kept going back to the Labour Department for my plane ticket,” Hipulan replied through a Cebuano interpreter.

The presiding officer said she checked records at the Labour Department but the Filipina did not go there. And yet, she kept extending her visa with Immigration, citing her pending claim as an excuse.

Chu chided Hipulan for her absences and said the tribunal officer had given up on calling her because he could not contact her on the phone.

The presiding officer said the claimant had wasted everyone’s time and the resources of the court, and set back the appointments of three claimants who were next in line.

Chu said she would also report the matter to Immigration so they would investigate what she had been doing in Hong Kong for the past nine and a half months.

Hipulan had filed a claim against Suen for $2,745.85 in unpaid wages, return air ticket, and $1,360 in damages, but Chu accepted only the claim for air ticket. She said Suen had already settled the rest by check which could not be delivered to Hipula and was kept by the Labour Department.

Chu computed the ticket cost at $1,350 and Hipulan readily accepted the amount.

Maid who sold cooked food for employer settles for $10k

By Vir B. Lumicao

 

Worker and employer settled their case at Labour Tribunal

All’s well that ends well for a Filipina domestic worker and her former employer, a local man, after settling their dispute at the Labour Tribunal on Dec 5.

A tearful Maribel Garcia embraced Hui Yiu-tak and his Filipina ex-wife in the lift on their way out of the Labour Tribunal building in Yaumatei after reaching a $10,000 settlement before Presiding Officer Isabella Chu.

But the settlement did not come easy.

About half an hour before they settled, Garcia faced Chu with a claim of $20,000 for unpaid rest days and statutory holidays. She was also claiming $10,910.79 in severance pay and the same amount as terminal pay.

Chu said both items were not valid because Garcia had resigned and Hui confirmed he had already hired a replacement. Hui was willing to settle for only $5,000.

Chu said Garcia’s only valid claim was for items A and B, or pay for unused rest days and statutory holidays, which the presiding officer had lumped together.

Garcia claimed she was not allowed by Hui to take a day off for the more than three years that she was in his employ because she had to sell cooked food that she and the employer had prepared to Filipinas who frequented a shopping center in Hung Hom.

In return, Hui paid Garcia 3% of their income from the sales. This went on until their relationship soured, and the helper resigned and left Hui’s home on Oct 11.

Chu warned Garcia and Hui they were both in breach of the condition of stay imposed by the Immigration on foreign domestic helpers.

“As a domestic helper, you can’t perform other jobs than stated in your contract. Because you consented to sell cooked food for your employer on your rest day, both of you were in breach of the Immigration conditions,” Chu said.

Chu told both parties that if they did not settle, she would send the case to trial and Immigration would be asked to investigate.

The presiding officer said their only option was to reach a settlement. She ordered a break so the parties could settle the issue by themselves.

In a short while, Garcia agreed to cut her claim to $10,000. Hui initially wavered, then agreed to pay the claim to settle the dispute once and for all. They then returned to court to inform Chu about their settlement.