Decline in OFW purchases of condominium due to inflating taxes

 

 

 Participation  of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs)  in Philippine condominium investment has softened materially as they are shifting to  offshore condominium markets.

 

PRIME Philippines  recently  presented a 10-year property market review and multi-year projections during the 2026 Annual Outlook and Media Briefing at Grand Hyatt.

 

PRIME Philippines is the fastest growing real estate service company in the country consistently providing effective integrated real estate solutions to developers, investors, occupiers, land bankers, and other clients.

 

PRIME reported that residential condos are now end-user led, not investor-driven.

 

Investor demand has softened due to compressed rental yields, muted capital appreciation over recent years, and heavy taxes imposed on transactions which structurally weaken condo investment returns.

 

Inflated zonal values ranging from 20-30%  have increased transaction costs through inflating taxes and fee bases.

 

 For ordinary assets used to generate income , taxation erodes roughly 36% of revenue,  30% of which are government taxes.

 

The usual costs include   Value Added Tax (17%), Capital Gains Tax (8%), Broker’s Commission (4%), Documentary Stamp Tax (2%), Association Dues (2%), Real Property Tax (2%), Transfer Tax & Registration Fee (1%).

 

 Higher interest rates weaken borrowing capacity and reduces  mortgage affordability for end-users.

 

PRIME noted that  an estimated 2 in 5 OFWs who previously bought in the Philippines are now allocating to offshore condominium markets. From a pricing perspective, upper-mid condominiums in central Dubai is also reported to be comparable to uppermid Metro Manila proper.

 

Rental yields have also shrunk. With yields ranging 5-10% pre-pandemic, the current state is now at 2-4%, more aligned with global standards.

 

PRIME noted in its 2025 reselling radar that 15-20%  were sold at a loss, 30-40% as “break-even”,  5% with more than 10% returns while the rest  “ on hold”.

 

Buyers increasingly favored house-and-lot living over high-density condominium formats, and developers adapted by launching “new normal” products.

 

PRIME noted that mid to luxury condominiums and residential lots posted estimated value declines of 10% to 25% in 2025. 

 

The more damaging shift was the deterioration in investor confidence following the flood control scandal, which depressed sentiment and prices for luxury assets. As a result, discounting became more aggressive, with developers offering 20–30% discounts.

 

PRIME suggested proper actions to address the several issues confronting the real estate industry: (a) realignment of zonal values for the “interest cut cycle”;  (b) reduce taxation redundancy for the  “weak economic growth”;  (c ) encourage longer mortgages for  declining investor confidence  and (d) first-time home buyer incentive for declining asset values  

 

 According to an Asian Development Bank study conducted in 2023, approximately 27.1% of remittances go into savings or investments, 72.7% of which are allocated towards real estate.

 

OFWs often buy homes for their families back home or as investments for their future. For many Filipino families, owning a home is a top priority, and OFWs play a crucial role in making that dream a reality.

 

In 2020, cash remittances experienced a minor 0.76% decline due to the pandemic, dropping from $30.13 billion in 2019 to $29.9 billion. 

 

In 2021, there was  strong recovery with a 5.1% year-on-year growth to $31.4 billion, driven by the reopening of global economies.

 

In 2022-2023, continued growth driven by land-based and sea-based workers with US$32. 539 billion  in 2022.

 

In 2024,  total personal remittances hit a record high of $38.34 billion, a 3% increase from 2023, representing 8.3% of the country's GDP.

 

As of November 2025 , the BSP data showed personal remittances of $35.73 Billion.

 

In terms of 2024 total  remittances amounting to $34,492,616,000, the sea-based sector sent home $6,941,085,000, or almost 20 percent, while the land-based sector sent home $27,551,532,000.

 

BSP records showed that he sea-based sector’s remittances (in thousand US dollars) for the past 20 years: $1,669,358 in 2005; $1,949,290 in 2006; $2,236,363 in 2007; US$3,034,553 in 2008; US$3,400,412 in 2009; $3,806,108 in 2010; $4,340,416 in 2011; $4,835,342 in 2012; $5,215,378 in 2013; $5,575,722 in 2014; $5,572,148 in 2015; $5,792,459 in 2016, US$6,870,827 in 2017; $6,139,512 in 2018; $6,539,246  in 2019; $6,353,522 in 2020; $6,545,002 in 2021; $6,715,880 in 2022; $6,852,362 in 2023; and $6,941,085 in 2024.

 

Remittances are a major source of foreign currency for the Philippines. This inflow of foreign currency helps support the value of the Philippine Peso, which is important for real estate investors who are looking to purchase property in the country.

 

(Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the Seafarers’ Division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0908-8665786.)

OFW remittances hit record $35 billion in 2025

 

 

Personal remittances  of Overseas Filipinos Workers (OFW)  increased by 3.3 percent to an all time high of US$39.62 billion from US$38.34 billion in 2024, according to  records from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

 

OFW cash remittances in 2025   reached US$35.63 billion, 3.3 percent higher than the US$34.49 billion recorded in 2024.

 

Land -based workers sent cash remittance amounting to US$28.49 billion, up 3.4 percent from 2024  (US$27,551billion). 

 

Sea-based workers remitted USD 7.139 billion in 2025 which is  2.9 percent higher than 2024 (US$6.94 billion).

 

By source, the BSP said the United States accounted for the largest share at 39.7 percent, followed by Singapore (7.3 percent), Saudi Arabia (6.6 percent), Japan (5 percent), and the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates (4.6 percent each).

 

The full-year 2025 cash remittances represented 7.3 percent and 6.4 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI), respectively.

 

Personal remittances represent the total value of money and goods sent by Filipinos working abroad, covering both formal bank transfers and informal channels (like hand-carrying cash).

 

 Cash remittances, a subset of personal remittances, refer exclusively to money sent specifically through bank-to-bank transfers or formal courier services.

 

Essentially, all cash remittances are personal remittances, but not all personal remittances are cash remittances.

 

Personal remittances are considered a more comprehensive metric of total household support, while cash remittances are tracked by the BSP for formal economic impact.

 

A weak peso often encourages higher remittances as the value of foreign currency increases in Philippine pesos.

 

Remittances provide macroeconomic benefits to the Philippine economy, where a significant portion of the population lives and works abroad.

 

They augment foreign currency reserves, alleviate pressure on the exchange rate, and reduce the need for foreign borrowing.

 

From 2015 to 2025, cash remittances reached   US$25.607B in 2015; US$26.900B in 2016; US$28.060B in 2017; US$28.943B in 2018; US$30.133B in 2019 ; US$29.903B in 2020; US$31.42B in 2021; US$32.539B in 2022; US$33.490B in 2023; US$34.492B in 2024;  and US$35.63B in 2025.               

 

These cash remittances formed part of the personal remittances that reached US$28.308B in  2015; US$29.706B in  2016; US$31.288B in   2017; US$32,213 in            2018; US$33.467B in   2019; US$33.194B in 2020; US$34.88B in 2021; US$36.14B in 2022; US$37.2B in 2023; US$38.34B in 2024; and $39.62B in 2025.           

 

In terms of deployment, the Department of Migrant Workers  (DMW) reported that the total number of Filipino seafarers deployed overseas reached 376,663 in 2017; 337,502 in 2018; 507,730 in 2019; 217,223 in 2020; 345.52 in 2021; 385,239 in 2022; 549,249 in 2023;  and 549,339 in 2024. 589,179 in 2025

 

The sea-based sector’s remittances (in thousand US dollars) for the past two decades: $1,669,358 in 2005; $1,949,290 in 2006; $2,236,363 in 2007; US$3,034,553 in 2008; US$3,400,412 in 2009; $3,806,108 in 2010; $4,340,416 in 2011; $4,835,342 in 2012; $5,215,378 in 2013; $5,575,722 in 2014; $5,572,148 in 2015; $5,792,459 in 2016, US$6,870,827 in 2017; $6,139,512 in 2018; $6,539,246 in 2019; $6,353,522 in 2020; $6,545,002 in 2021; $6,715,880 in 2022; $6,852,362 in 2023;  $6,941,085 in 2024 and $7,139,028 in 2025.

 

The data showed the yearly increase of seafarers’ remittances (in thousand US dollars) in 2006 ($279,930) 2007 ($287,073), 2008 ($798,190), 2009 ($365,859), 2010 (US$405,696), 2011 (US$534,308), 2012 ($494,926), 2013 ($380,036), 2014 ($360,344), 2015 ($220,311), 2016 (US$220,311), 2017 ($1,078, 368), 2018 (US$731,315), 2019 ($399,734), 2021 ($191,480) 2022 ($172,878),  2023 ($136,482), 2024 ($88,723) and 2025 ($197,943).

 

The remittances decreased in two years: 2015 by $3,574 and 2020 by $185,724.

 

Unlike land-based OFWs, the DMW Seafarer Employment Contract (SEC) mandates that a Filipino seafarer has to make an allotment which shall be at least 80 percent of the seafarer’s “monthly basic salary”, payable once a month to his designated allottee in the Philippines.

 

Basic wage  under the DMW SEC is defined as “the salary of the seafarer exclusive of overtime, leave pay”.

 

However, under the Magna Carta for Filipino Seafarers, the allotment shall be at least 80 percent of the seafarer’s “monthly salary.” The word “basic” was omitted .

 

The monthly salary shall now consist of basic wage plus fixed or guaranteed overtime. significantly increasing the total amount that must be sent home.

 

Seafarers have expressed concern that this restricts their ability to manage their own money, leaving them with only 20% to cover personal expenses, "crucial savings," or emergencies while on board.

 

While the law mandates that remittances be converted using the actual bank exchange rate at the time of transfer, concerns persist about inconsistencies in the rates applied by different agencies, principals, or banks.

 

 (Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho is the junior partner   of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0908-8665786.)

The Tooth Shall Set You Free

 

 

 “The Tooth Shall Set You Free” is  a variation of the biblical quote "The truth will set you free"  that   became the mantra  of senatorial candidate Atty. Chel Diokno.

 

" Vēritās vōs līberābit”  in Latin, it    is a statement derived from verse John 8:32 where  Jesus Christ addresses to a group of Jews who believed in him. The truth is meant to represent Christianity, God or Jesus which will set you free from worldly impediments such as sin, misery, or ignorance.

 

Diokno became popular because of his teeth. Every time pressing issues  arise,  Duterte and his followers throw  ad hominem attacks against him by  criticizing  his  teeth.

 

President Duterte  insulted Diokno for  for his teeth after he accused the human rights lawyer of resorting to black propaganda amid the government’s fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

“ Kaya hindi ka nanalo kasi kalaki ng ngipin mo. Magsalita kalahati ng panga mo lumalabas. ( You did not win because  your teeth is big. Whenever you speak, half of your mouth shows).

But Diokno embraced it by saying that “dapat may ngipin ang batas”  (The law must have teeth) as part of  his advocacy for a better judicial system.

After earning a degree in Philosophy at the UP Diliman, he  studied  at the UP College of Law for a year until 1983 and then went to  Northern Illinois University (NIU) where he graduated Juris Doctor, magna cum laude and passed the Illinois Bar.  He  went back to the Philippines where he passed the  1988   Bar Examinations.  

 

He was the founding dean of the De La Salle University College of Law.

 

As part  of his platform, Diokno said that the justice system should be reformed to ensure that the rights of every individual are protected and to promote social justice.

 

Diokno pointed out that although the Supreme Court has released circulars to speed up the justice system, the problem in its implementation is primarily attributable to the lack of prosecutors and judges to handle the cases.

 

He also noted that certainty of punishment and speedy and efficient disposition of justice are key to stop corruption and criminality.

 

I   had the chance to be trained on   alternative lawyering as a student volunteer of  Diokno’s Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) which  is a nationwide organization of  lawyers who provide free legal aid to victims of abuse and indigent Filipinos who could not afford to avail themselves of legal services.

 

FLAG was  founded in 1974 by Senators  Jose Diokno, Lorenzo Tañada and Joker Arroyo during the martial law era under former President Ferdinand Marcos.  

 

I was then a member of the UP Paralegal Volunteers' Organization (UP PVO) which is devoted to the formation of law students equipped with the necessary skills to empower communities and basic sectors through paralegal training education.

 

His  father, former Senator Jose “Pepe” Diokno once said  “a lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear, and criticism silenced by force.”

 

Passing the bar is not enough. Ultimately, being a good lawyer is a different thing.

 

There will be those who will join the law offices for private practice while others will go to government, judiciary, politics or the academe.

 

And there’s alternative lawyering.

 

It is a  legal practice either individually or through legal resource organizations that work with the poor and marginalized groups, identities and communities towards their empowerment, greater access to justice, and building peace.

 

Alternative lawyers do often take on careers outside of the mainstream, but what differentiates their work is their commitment to a different route to, and conception of, justice.

 

Many alternative lawyers are guided by the words of former President Ramon Magsaysay: ”Those who have less in life should have more in law.”

 

The poor who have less resources in relation to the rich will often  have to  bank on the law to safeguard their rights.

 

In building a more accessible, inclusive and dynamic justice system, all remedies allowed by law should be completely exhausted for their protection. The semblance of being given “more” in law is imperative to equip them the chance of equality which they do not enjoy.

 

Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are seasoned lawyers among others who passed their whole life in pursuit of emancipation of the human beings.

 

Lawyers, as professionals, are expected to uphold the ethical and moral values that are said to be essential to the fabric that holds society together.

 

Let us hope that Chel’s mantra “The tooth shall  set you free” reverberates in the legislative halls.

( Peyups  is the monicker of University of the Philippines. Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

The WW II women victims of sexual slavery and violence are dying

Lola  Isabelita  Viduya  died last November 23, 2021 at age of 89 due to pneumonia, the same day the unfortunate event called “Mapanique Siege” happened in 1944.

Lola Isabelita  is a leader of the Malaya Lolas who are   victims of military sexual violence and slavery  by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the Second World War.

Born November 1, 1932, Lola Isabelita was 12 years old  when   the Imperial Japanese Army attacked on   November  23, 1944 their barrio Mapaniqui in Candaba, Pampanga,  a suspected bailiwick of Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon (HukBaLaHap)

Their communities were bombed, houses were looted and burned, and civilians were publicly tortured, mutilated, and slaughtered.

Some 100 women and girls,  then ranging from 13 to early 20s,  were  ordered to walk from Mapaniqui to the Bahay na Pula (Red House)  in San Ildefonso, Bulacan,  which became the site of a mass sexual assault.

Japanese soldiers forcibly seized the women and were "locked inside"  the “comfort stations” where they were repeatedly raped, beaten, and abused by Japanese soldiers as part of the destruction of the village.

As a result of the actions of their Japanese tormentors, the  "survivors of the wartime female slavery system"  have spent their lives in misery, having endured physical injuries, pain and disability, and mental and emotional suffering.

Lola Isabelita  is one of the lead petitioners in the case of Vinuya vs Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230               April 28, 2010)  filed by Malaya Lolas.

 

The Malaya Lolas  claimed that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the Philippines.

However, officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the Lolas , and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case noting that it is not within their power to order the Executive Department to take up the Malaya Lolas’ cause. Theirs is only the power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up  the Lolas’ cause.

The Court affirmed that ‘rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law’, but stated that ‘the practice of states does not yet support the present existence of an obligation to prosecute international crimes’

“Of course, we greatly sympathize with the cause of petitioners, and we cannot begin to comprehend the unimaginable horror they underwent at the hands of the Japanese soldiers. We are also deeply concerned that, in apparent contravention of fundamental principles of law, the petitioners appear to be without a remedy to challenge those that have offended them before appropriate fora. Needless to say, our government should take the lead in protecting its citizens against violation of their fundamental human rights,” the Supreme Court said.

It has been  76  years   since the war ended on August 15, 1945, and yet the Japanese government refuses to recognize its official accountability to the victims of sex slavery.  

 About 200,000 women  from  Korea, China, Burma, New Guinea, and the Philippines. were held in captivity and many thousands more were raped as part of one of the largest operations of sexual violence in modern history.

 It was in the late 1990s that the Lolas  came out as part of Lila Filipina and Malaya Lolas  to tell the world about this inhuman practice of the Japanese during the war.

I personally met Lola Isabelita in July  2019  during the medical mission  in Mapaniqui of Flowers for Lolas, an alliance supporting the campaign on the issue of WWII  victims of sexual violence and slavery.

"Rape is still rape whether it was done for days, for months or for years. The effect is the same. It destroyed our bodies, our sense of self. We lived in shame for years,” said Isabelita  Viduya of Malaya Lolas.  

She  lamented in an earlier NPR interview  that the Malaya Lolas  received no compensation from the Asian Women's Fund as they were not considered as "comfort women" because they were not held or abused over an extended period.

 

Another Lola,  Remedios  Tecson,  died  March 2021 at the age of  93

The recent deaths of  Lola Isabelita and other   WWII women victims of sexual slavery and violence are manifestations that the survivors are dying without  receiving  a formal apology and legal compensation from Japan.

Justice has not been given to women such as Lola Isabelita. Their fight for unequivocal public apology, accurate historical inclusion, and just compensation continues up to this day.

(  Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).

Katutubo sa Senado

 

Macli-ing Dulag is among the most well known of the many victims of Martial law under then president  Ferdinand Marcos.

Macli-ing  was a pangat (leader) of the Butbut tribe of Kalinga who  opposed the  government plan of constructing a 1,010 megawatts dam project covering the Chico River.

Despite the lack of  a formal education,  Macli-ing knew  that the project will eventually displace thousands of his people from their ancestral lands and destroy million worth of fruits, vegetables, and grains.

Macli-ing was killed on April 24,1980 by government forces in an attempt to silence him but his murder was a catalyst that united the peoples of the Cordillera in opposition against the dam.

 

One of his famous quote on  the people's reverence for the land, affirming their right to stay states:  “You ask if we own the land and mock as saying, 'Where is your title?, When we ask the meaning of your words you answer with taunting arrogance, 'Where are the documents to prove that you own the land?' Titles? Documents? Proof of ownership. Such arrogance to speak of owning the land when we instead are owned by it. How can you own that which will outlive you.? Only the race owns the land because the race lives forever. “

My former UP Law professor and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonon cited Macliing’s words in his concurring opinion in Sama vs People  (G.R. No. 224469, January 05, 2021)    that Iraya-Mangyans should be acquitted of the crime charged  for violating Revised Forestry Code  after they cut down a dita tree without a license or permit issued by the proper authority.

The Iraya-Mangyans invoked their Indigenous People (IP) right to harvest dita tree logs, which constitute a part of their right to cultural integrity, ancestral domain, and ancestral lands. They insist that the felled dita tree was planted in their ancestral domain, over which the Iraya-Mangyans' exercise communal dominion.

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), or Republic Law 8371, was enacted in 1997 to support the cultural integrity of IPs, the right to their lands and the right to self-directed development of these lands.

Leonen underscored  that the concept of ownership introduced by IPRA is distinct in the sense that, unlike the Civil Code which puts emphasis on individual and corporate holders, IPRA stresses the private but communal nature of ancestral domains.

IPRA recognizes that IPs have a claim of ownership, not only upon the ancestral domain, but also on the resources found in them. It acknowledges that the ancestral domain and the resources located therein constitute as the IPs basis for their cultural integrity.

“The indigenous peoples' struggle for their rights have long been enduring. Their struggle for the recognition of their rights to land and self- determination is rooted in their effort for cultural and human survival. We should honor the struggle of our people. This decision is the least we can do to correct a historical injustice.” Leonen said.

The number of IPs in the Philippines is unknown, but it is estimated that they are  between 10% and 20% of the country's population who have retained much of their traditional, pre-colonial culture, social institutions and living practices.

Most of the  IPs continue to live in geographically isolated areas with lack of access to basic social services and few opportunities for widespread economic activities, education or political participation.

“Katutubo sa Senado” is the campaign slogan of Teddy  Baguilat Jr.  a member of the Liberal Party, who is a known  politician- activist and advocate of IP rights and the rights of minority groups.

A native of  Ifugao in  the Cordillera mountain range, he was first elected as a lawmaker in 2010. Prior to this, he served as Ifugao governor for two terms and as mayor of Kiangan town.

I was with  Baguilat in Kiangan’s  “Gotad” which is  an Ifugao term for celebration, or large gathering for thanksgiving. It  features, among others, the cultural ethnic sports competition.

We belong to opposing student  political parties in UP Diliman, Teddy was with Nagkaisang Tugon while I belong to SAMASA.

During his term as a congressman,  he supported several bills involving IPs including  the Indigenous Education bill which mandates the usage of indigenous education in all indigenous communities in the country, the Indigenous Barangay bill which aims to establish fully-fledged barangays where indigenous communities are present, and other bills focusing on indigenous rights.

If given the chance to be the first  IP  to become a senator, Baguilat  will push for the passage of the Land Use Act, a new mining law, and  sustainable forest management.

Electing a deserving representative of our IPs  is long overdue.

Baguilat will carry the voices of our indigenous peoples in the Senate.

 

( Peyups  is the monicker of University of the Philippines. Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786).