Short answer. Yes. The Labor Code makes it mandatory for Filipino workers abroad to remit a portion of their foreign exchange earnings to their families or beneficiaries here. The provision itself fixes no percentage and names no bank — those details come from rules issued by the Secretary of Labor.
What the law says
It shall be mandatory for all Filipino workers abroad to remit a portion of their foreign exchange earnings to their families, dependents, and/or beneficiaries in the country
Labor Code, Article 22 — Mandatory Remittance Of Earnings. Read the full provision →
The duty is written as an obligation, not an encouragement
The wording leaves little room: it shall be mandatory for all Filipino workers abroad to remit a portion of their foreign exchange earnings to their families, dependents, and/or beneficiaries in the country. Two things follow from that sentence. The obligation attaches to the worker personally, wherever he is employed, rather than to the agency that deployed him. And it is framed in terms of foreign exchange — the provision belongs to a chapter concerned with the country's dollar earnings as much as with the household waiting at home. That double purpose explains why it is drafted as a command rather than as advice about supporting one's family.
How much, and why the article will not tell you
The article requires a portion. It does not say a third, a half, or any figure at all, and nobody reading the Labor Code alone can work out the number. That is deliberate: the amount is left to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, which have been written, revised and applied differently to different classes of worker over the years. So if someone quotes you a fixed percentage as though the statute said it, ask which issuance they are reading. The statutory duty is constant; the figure attached to it is administrative and changes.
Who the money is supposed to reach
The recipients named are the worker's families, dependents, and/or beneficiaries in the country. That is broader than a spouse and children — a dependent parent or a designated beneficiary fits the wording — but it is not open-ended, because the money must land in the Philippines with someone who stands in one of those relationships to the worker. Remitting to your own account here is a different thing from supporting a dependent, and a worker with nobody in that category is in a position the provision does not obviously contemplate.
What this rule does not settle
It is worth separating two questions that often arrive together. Whether you must remit under the Labor Code is one; whether a particular relative can demand a sum from you is another, and that second question is answered by family law and by whatever your employment contract itself stipulates, not by this article. If a spouse or parent is telling you that the law entitles them to a share of your salary, the document that decides it is usually the contract and the family relationship — get both in front of a lawyer rather than arguing about the remittance rule.