In July 1997, the crisis struck Asia. What began as a financial debacle turned into a full-blown economic crisis whose impact began to be felt in terms of rising unemployment and loss of purchasing power. Filipino migrants faced the threat of untimely repatriation. Although such threat has had limited implementation, and Filipino migrants are distributed over a larger number of countries, including those that were less affected by the crisis, the crisis signaled a potential decline in the number of Filipinos working abroad. Facing the possibilities of repatriation and fewer jobs available in Asia, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) prepared a reformulated work plan. Some of the points included in that document are a clear departure from the policy established in RA 8042.

First is the advice to re-negotiate contracts "as long as terms are acceptable to workers and approved by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)." The advice sends a clear message that Filipino migrants are not just for sale, as they had always been, but on sale. It indicates that both migrants and the government are willing to consider and accept lower terms. Adaptability in times of crisis is a necessity, but must it be posted in the market even before it is required?

Second is the intention to explore new markets, even those that were previously avoided because they were considered too dangerous, such as Algeria. Obviously the crisis invites a re-evaluation of dangers: what was unacceptable before has suddenly become acceptable. People cannot be too choosy in times of crisis. But is there a clear evaluation of the benefits and costs at stake? Is employment abroad the highest priority, for which any other value can be disregarded?

Finally, the document, aware that some policy directions conflict with current legislation, declares the intention of POEA to push for legislation "to allow flexibility in the implementation of specific provisions of RA 8042 restricting overseas employment without sacrificing welfare and protection of OFWs" (POEA 1998). Since it does not specify which provisions, one wonders: Perhaps the provision to only deploy skilled workers? But it was never implemented. Perhaps provisions concerning illegal recruitment? Again, those provisions were not actively implemented. In fact, the clamor generated by recruiters soon after the bill was adopted – to the point of stopping deployment for a couple of days – quickly waned, since recruiters were confident that they did not have much to fear.