Rethink Senior Citizen Bill
Revilla’s apparent justification for his bill is that many senior citizens who died from the Covid-19 pandemic were unable to avail of their discounts.
Text size
Revilla’s apparent justification for his bill is that many senior citizens who died from the Covid-19 pandemic were unable to avail of their discounts.
Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. recently announced that he filed a bill calling for amendments to the current senior citizen benefits law.
Under the current law, senior citizens are entitled to substantial discounts on restaurant bills, limited food products, public transportation, medication (supported by physician's prescriptions) and theatrical entertainment, among others. Senior citizens are also exempted from the value-added tax on sales transactions.
To qualify as a senior citizen entitled to the statutorily mandated discount, one has to be at least 60 years old.
Revilla's bill seeks to lower the minimum age of senior citizens from 60 to 56 years. His apparent justification for his bill is that many senior citizens who died from the Covid-19 pandemic were unable to avail of their discounts. He also says that his proposed amendatory law will ease up the financial burdens of many Filipinos in their late 50s.
While Revilla's bill seems like welcome news to many Filipinos, it is not feasible. In fact, several seasoned legislators underscore the need for a careful study of the measure, considering that it will reduce the government's tax revenues. Other legislators point out that expanding the coverage of senior citizenship discounts may end up putting some businesses in financial trouble.
Buddies, associates? One happy family?
A traditional dish called zongzi is served during China’s Dragon Boat Festival, which falls in June. It is a rice…
Divina credited the firm’s achievements to its members, thanking them for their ‘hard work, dedication, teamwork, and…
‘Sec. Vince Dizon, please explain how this finding of your own team should not be flagged as a ghost project in Taguig.’
Senator Jinggoy Estrada is not too keen on Revilla's proposed measure precisely for those reasons.
Prominent senior citizen rights advocate Romulo Macalintal commented on national television that Revilla's bill seems designed to keep the senator popular with the voters, but it does not appear to be supported by a thorough study on the financial repercussions of the proposed legislative measure on the national economy.
Perhaps, Revilla has not been properly advised about the rationale behind the current minimum age requirement of 60 for one to qualify as a senior citizen.
Traditionally, a senior citizen must be at least 65 years old. That minimum age requirement is based on the legislated mandatory retirement age of 65 in government service and private enterprises.
Since most retirees, upon reaching 65 years, no longer have a regular source of income, whatever retirement benefits they may have drawn from their immediately previous employment may soon be used up. To extend the limited resources of retirees, the law on senior citizen discounts was conceived, with 65 years as the minimum age for senior citizenship.
When the legal concept of optional retirement for employees who are at least 60 years old came about, the law on senior citizenship discounts set the minimum age for senior citizenship status at 60 years.
Considering the high cost of living today, most people are reluctant to retire too early and, in the process, just rely on their pensions thereafter. More often than not, one who retires, whether at an optional age or when mandated by law, is probably too weak or too weathered, or even disabled in part or whole, to continue working.
That is the rationale for pegging the minimum age for senior citizen discounts to 60 years. It is a cut-off point that eases the economic plight of the retirees without unduly depriving the government of needed tax revenues, and without cutting too much into the reasonable profit margin of private enterprises.
Under the law, senior citizens need to prove their age by any authentic documentation such as government-issued identification cards, driver's licenses, and the like. The local government-issued senior citizen's card is the best documentary proof, but the law does not require the presentation of specifically that card to avail of senior citizen discounts.
Unfortunately, many commercial establishments demand the local government-issued senior citizen cards. These establishments brazenly but illegally claim they need to take note of the number of the local government-issued senior citizen card.
If Revilla wants to help senior citizens, he should focus his attention on these commercial establishments that impose illegal requirements on helpless senior citizens applying for legislative-mandated discounts.
