Tourist Visa Immigration law "modernization" visa changes

It's not a case of believe or not believe but anyone who believes anything to do with bureaucracy here is advised to be cautious.

I was referring to the video (not the legal proposal) and the Visa expert (who read the proposal with an informed mind) clearly stated that all visitors will require an exit-clearance irrespective of the time spent here. The only way that was not said is if I imagined it or misunderstood and I would never rule that out 100%. But it does seem so very illogical that a misunderstanding of the proposal has possibly crept in somewhere.

But as the TWO experts have said (the one on the video and Mr Head, above): It is probably UNWISE to depend on getting an exit-clearance at the airport. It may work or it may not - whereas having one already in hand means that it did work.

 

1. Seems so
3. Currently still unclear (see my blue underlined part of the law text below)
4. No, only registered foreigners, meaning those extending their stay beyond 59 days.

 

But the poster is not trying to find the facts. As he says:

So regardless of anything you and I write or interpret, we are apparently not as informed as the blogging expert with the informed Pea mind.

 

NO! I am not going by Miss Pea, as nice as I think she seems to be in putting information across.

She had a Philippine Visa Expert with her and we assume he knows how to read the proposals. If these 'experts' are not valid then who do we go to when an immigration problem crops up? Do we say that all of them are hopeless?

Do we say the same for every 'expert' in medicine and dentistry? If we do, then why do members here ask for recommendations. Unless you have used or heard about the Visa Expert (whose name I did not make a note of) then how do you know his validity?

To answer my own quandary: Maybe we just wait until the new laws are solid - and then let every different official and different office interpret then in whatever way they want! That is the Filipino way.