Changes in the air

[Snowy79]

1 hour ago, Jack Peterson said:

 Surely the BI Do not issue a Retirement Visa is that not the province of another Agency

I'm no expert but I'd think the PRA would have to get Authority from the BI for any Visas.  Them being the overall controllers.

[skippyscage]

59 minutes ago, softail said:

It looks like the Balikbayan privilege is still in effect when traveling with your spouse 

it is - I entered in May with my spouse -- I had a 9a visa (59 days) and a 13a visa (provisional) in my passport, yet the immigration officer stamped my passport for BB as she said it was valid for longer, 1 year.

[Mike J]

1 hour ago, Snowy79 said:

Definitely genuine as the first reading has passed the Congress and is being accelerated to the Senate where no doubt there will be tweeks. From my reading of the actual Bill the key areas will be for tourists. No more visas on entry and each visa is to be obtained via your local Consulate/Embassy and only valid for 5 days.  Also if you leave and wish to return within the year you need permission to return prior to leaving.  Once you have left for more than one year all visas are cancelled.  They are also looking to up Quota visas to 200 per year per nationality. 

 

See chapter 7, section 77.  The visa is valid for three months (not five days), and may be replaced with another visa (same number) within a year but fees need to be paid again.

The permission to return within one year appears to be in there so you don't have to apply for a visa again.  That part sort of makes sense, but the reality is they will get your money on the outbound leg instead of the  inbound with a whole new visa process.

43 minutes ago, softail said:

Dose this mean that that the Balikbayan privilege is gone?

 

I think it will still be allowed.  The final paragraph in Chapter 1 of the bill says; "All visa issued by other than the Bureau as provided by the respective governing laws are subject to reportorial requirements of the board . . . . "  I take that to say other government agencies, i.e. Philippine Retirement Authority will continue.  That being said, the SSRV rules may change again due to past abuse, primarily by China and the POGOs.  Government employment here is almost sacrosanct so I do not see them taking away jobs or authority from another agency and they like having "real" retirement folks tying up cash and spending their pensions here.  The government will not want to lose that.

[Jollygoodfellow]

7 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

The house has recently passed a Bill to make massive changes to Immigration here which could have some scary consequences

I read it all and see nothing much different than before except for BI salary rates.

7 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

but word on the grape vine is the largest change will be to tourist visas.  It is propossed that all tourist visas will have to be approved by the Embassy in your home country and only valid for 59 days, similar to what they introduced for the Chinese but I think in their case they were only given 30 days.  On addition to this you have to prove a means of finance.  Bank statement or proof of earnings.

Word on the grape vine, gossip comes to mind. Theres always talk at times about something but not much changes. Even if you had to get a 59 day visa in your home country did word on the grape vine suggest it cant be extended? 

Even now Phil embassy only give out 59 day visa but says can be extended at the BI so nothing new there. 

. 9(a) Temporary Visitor Visa:
a. Single entry (59-day stay)
b. 6 Months Multiple entry (maximum stay of 59 days per entry)
c. 1 Year Multiple entry (maximum stay of 59 days per entry)

[Jollygoodfellow]

Merged two of the same topics into one.

[Jollygoodfellow]

8 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

You don't know Reekay?  I thought he was one of the most well known Philippine vloggers.  He has some very accurate opinions, but his vlogs make money so probably tainted towards shares and views = profit.

I wont even watch the video as he is a self pronounced expert on everything.

Personally I will wait until and if there are ever any official notices of changes and what they mean. Too many issues as it is without thinking about other what ifs 

[Snowy79]

1 hour ago, Mike J said:

 

See chapter 7, section 77.  The visa is valid for three months (not five days), and may be replaced with another visa (same number) within a year but fees need to be paid again.

 

Read Chapter 5, section 67 as it says 59 days. That is the section for temporary visitors and it refers you to Chaper 1, Section 55a.  

[Mike J]

7 minutes ago, Snowy79 said:

Read Chapter 5, section 67 as it says 59 days. That is the section for temporary visitors and it refers you to Chaper 1, Section 55a.  

I was not clear in my post I guess.  When you get the visa, you then have up to three months to enter the Philippines.  If not used in three months, you can pay the fees again but the visa must be used within 12 months of being issued.  Hope that adds clarity.  You are correct, the tourist visa allows you to stay 59 days.

[RBM]

13 hours ago, Mike J said:

I was not clear in my post I guess.  When you get the visa, you then have up to three months to enter the Philippines.  If not used in three months, you can pay the fees again but the visa must be used within 12 months of being issued.  Hope that adds clarity.  You are correct, the tourist visa allows you to stay 59 days.

Not had a chance to read the bill how ever in the video I posted it was stated when applying for the visa it must be ones home country. Surely not, one would imagine any Philippine Embassy would suffice.

[Mike J]

10 minutes ago, RBM said:

Not had a chance to read the bill how ever in the video I posted it was stated when applying for the visa it must be ones home country. Surely not, one would imagine any Philippine Embassy would suffice.

I think the author of the video may have misinterpreted a portion of the proposed law.  Below are two cut/paste from the law.  I added the outline boxes.  The first speaks to what documents are required upon arrival and I think that is where the confusion came into play.  The law requires a pass port and "travel documents" issued by the government to which the visitor owes allegiance.  But it can only refer to the passport, as the visa itself (see second doc) can only be issued by a Philippine consulate.   So you need a passport issued by your home country of allegiance, and a visa (or other acceptable travel document) issued by a Philippine consulate.  At least that is how I read it.