Thursday, October 18, 2007 Malig: Councilor hits senior citizens law violators By Jun A. Malig Cognition
VIGILANCE, in pursuit of the general welfare or the common good, is something all elected and appointed public officials must keep in mind to enable them to effectively perform their duties and responsibilities to the public. By acting as protectors of the wellbeing of their constituents, the so-called public servants ought to keep their eyes open against violation or non-compliance of national laws and local ordinances, especially the ones beneficial to the poor, the children and the elderly.
In this regard, I would like to commend former colleague Jesus "Jay" Sangil, a two-term councilor in Angeles City, for his efforts for the benefit of the senior citizens.
Jay noted that some popular food shops, bakeries, restaurants and similar establishments allow maximum discounts of only P30 or P40 to senior citizens regardless of the amount of the purchased products. I agree with Jay that this kind of unilateral "policy" on the part of some food establishments really need to be looked into.
The outspoken councilor said some establishments do not even give senior citizens discounts on take-out food items.
He said violations of the senior citizens law "in drugstores are also noteworthy and outraging." He said "it is the height of stupidity and ignorance" to require sick elderly patients to purchase their own medicines and be physically present "just to avail of the discounts specifically entitled to them under the law."
Noting the defiance of the law and the formulation of their own discount rates by some establishments, Jay has called upon members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to institute reforms in Republic Act 9257 (Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003). In the House, he coursed his request through Pampanga first district Representative Carmelo Lazatin. He is also set to ask other city councilors to sign his resolution requesting Sen. Edgardo Angara, the principal author of RA 9257, to introduce a similar measure in the Senate.
Such amendments, Jay stressed, should include clear and definite directives that would enable senior citizens, including members of their immediate families who buy medicines for them, "to once and for all enjoy these benefits without having to actually fight for them."
At present, Jay said it is a common sight "to find senior citizens quarreling over the discounts with service attendants at food shops, restaurants, drugstores and other establishments."
"It's a shame that this is happening to our elderly just because there are no clear-cut policies and guidelines. Amending the law is necessary," the councilor added, while disclosing that he had received numerous complaints from elderly folk about the confusion and problems they have been encountering when availing of the benefits under RA 9257.
*****
Last June 29, the Supreme Court declared that "the State, in promoting the health and welfare of a special group of citizens, can impose upon private establishments the burden of partly subsidizing a government program."
The high court stressed this point when it dismissed the petition filed by a group of domestic corporations and proprietors operating drugstores that contested the constitutionality of RA 9257. It emphasized that the granting of the 20 percent discount to senior citizens is within the bounds of the Constitution and that establishments may claim though tax credits (based on the net cost) the discounts they granted to the elderly.
In GR No. 166494, the Chief Justice and justices of the Supreme Court have ruled that "property rights must yield to the general welfare" and stated that "it is incorrect for petitioners to insist that the grant of the senior citizen discount is unduly oppressive to their business."
*****
Aside from the clear cut policies and guidelines and strict implementation of the senior citizens law being sought by Councilor Jay, perhaps our solons and senators would also like to take note of the following:
1. The fact that the current law and its implementing rules and regulations allow senior citizens to make a discounted (five percent) purchase of not more than P650 in basic and prime commodities per week. The government assumes that an elderly person would need only P650 worth of basic and prime commodities within seven days, which I believe is unrealistic in this time and age when even the prices of eggs and pandesal have skyrocketed.
2. Senior citizens are not exempt from paying the 12 percent expanded value-added tax (e-VAT). Based on the computation made by government agencies like the Department of Trade and Industry and Bureau of Internal Revenue, if the amount of an e-VAT-subject product is P100 and the lawful discount is 20 percent, the elderly will have an actual discount of only P9.60, instead of P20.
