Whatever they have decided to pursue over the weekend, one thing is certain about the plan of Filipino migrant workers to hold a zero-remittance week in protest of the Marcos administration’s stance on the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) pursuit of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

The gravity of this protest cannot be overstated, as it highlights the delicate intersection of economic stability and political strife. A week-long suspension of remittances is a radical course of action that could have far-reaching implications for the nation.

Malacañang, unsurprisingly, is urging OFWs to remain “level-headed,” emphasizing the importance of their financial contribution to their families and the national economy.

Remittances are the lifeblood of the Philippine economy, constituting nearly 10 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2023 alone, OFWs sent home approximately $37 billion, providing a crucial buffer against economic downturns. A sudden and coordinated halt in remittances, even for a week, could have significant short-term repercussions.

A drop in foreign currency inflows could cause the peso to depreciate further, leading to higher inflation and increased costs of imported goods.

Many Filipino families rely on OFW remittances for their daily expenses, education and medical needs. A week without remittances would result in reduced consumer spending, dampening local businesses.

The Philippine banking sector depends heavily on remittance inflows. A sudden dip in transactions could disrupt banking operations, affecting liquidity and foreign exchange reserves.

A large-scale OFW protest signals instability, potentially discouraging foreign investors from injecting capital into the country.

Even though a week-long remittance halt may not completely cripple the economy, it sends a clear warning shot: OFWs are aware of their economic leverage and are willing to use it to challenge government actions they deem unacceptable.

Beyond economics, the planned remittance strike serves as a potent political statement. OFWs, hailed as the country’s modern-day heroes, wield immense influence — not just financially, but electorally. This protest is emblematic of growing dissent among Filipinos abroad, many of whom are ardent supporters of Duterte and his policies. Their outrage over the ICC proceedings suggests that Marcos Jr.’s administration is treading on volatile ground.

The government’s appeal for OFWs to remain “understanding” reveals its apprehension. If the protest gains traction, it may force the administration to reassess its handling of the ICC issue and possibly recalibrate its stance on Duterte’s legal predicament.

A remittance boycott would reverberate across the nation, sparking debates on loyalty, justice and economic pragmatism. Would local Filipinos sympathize with the OFWs, or would they resent the financial strain imposed by the protest?

The protest could likewise serve as an early litmus test for the prospects of Marcos Jr.’s senatorial and congressional bets, and for the rise of a more formidable opposition. If a significant number of Filipinos perceive the government’s response as inadequate or dismissive, it could shift political allegiances.

The success of this movement hinges on unity. If OFWs across key remittance hubs — such as the US, the Middle East and Europe — solidify their stance, the protest could send shock waves across both the economic and political spheres. Conversely, if participation is fragmented or short-lived, the government may dismiss it as an isolated outcry.

Ultimately, the issue extends beyond Duterte and the ICC — it is a referendum on governance, accountability, and the enduring power of Filipino workers abroad. Whether Malacañang chooses to address their concerns meaningfully or merely issue pacifying statements remains to be seen.

One thing is certain though: A discontented OFW sector is a force the government cannot afford to ignore.