I propose that senior citizens, who are constrained to commence legal actions, whether civil, criminal or administrative, before Philippine courts and the local offices of the prosecutor, or who transact official business with government agencies which impose regulatory and administrative fees, be given the usual 20% discount/benefit, or even more, as granted by existing Philippine laws.
I appreciate the fact that Rule 3 and Rule 141 of the !997 Rules of Civil Procedure contain liberal provisions on indigent litigants, who are exempted, upon motion, from court filing and docket fees. I also appreciate the fact that existing circulars of the Department of Justice contain the same provision. However, it must be admitted that, the foregoing provisions notwithstanding, still the filing and docket fees of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice are too burdensome for middle-class Filipino litigants.
The same is true with the regulatory and administrative fees imposed by government offices with which Filipino senior citizens transact business, e.g., local mayors, local civil registrars, local registers of deeds, et. al.
No wonder, a great majority of Filipinos, seniors or not, would rather do business in the informal economy beyond the reach of the rules of the Establishment or would rather assume de facto status with respect to their personal and family relational problems, because legal costs are way beyond their modest reach.
Some middle-class senior citizens do not qualify as indigent litigants under the rules of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), in which case they are compelled to hire the costly services of private trial lawyers.
I understand the maximum income of a PAO client must not exceed 15,000 Pesos a month to qualify for free legal aid.
As to the legal aid efforts of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which receives millions of pesos from the Supreme Court annually, perhaps it is time for the Supreme court to cause a comprehensive audit of its free legal aid funds vis-a-vis its accomplishments.
In my 12 years of work as a local IBP chapter official, I was not impressed by the accomplishments of the committee on legal aid of my chapter, not only because of the low quality of the service being rendered by the assigned free legal aid lawyer but also because, and this was common knowledge, the poor clients were sometimes being asked to share some amounts for the court appearances of the so-called free legal aid lawyer.
Free legal aid lawyers of the IBP received a token of 5,000 pesos monthly, but they were allowed to engage in private practice and were, in effect, entitled to free overhead costs because they use, free of charge, the local IBP chapter offices, staff, library, and equipment.
Most lawyers reject such a position. I recall that I had a hard time looking for a young free legal aid lawyer for Las Pinas City when I founded the Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA) in 2001, because our funds were not enough to sustain the respectable salaries of good trial lawyers. Up to now, the Association does not have its own local fee legal aid lawyer, for lack of regular funding. Its directors have to share a part of their professional time to assist the urban poor of the city.
I also note that under existing Philippine laws, doctors are mandated to give a 20% discount on their professional fees to Filipino senior citizens. However, there are no similar provisions with respect to other professionals, who fees are likewise costly, e.g., lawyers, engineers, architects, et. al.
Lat year, Congress passed a law giving a tax deduction to lawyers who render pro bono services. Up to now, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has not issued its implementing rules and regulations on the matter. The Supreme Court has likewise not yet issued a circular thereon. The same is true with the IBP.
The Supreme Court and the IBP must take the initiative to prod the BIR to move faster on the matter. The local voluntary bar associations like the LPBA, must be democratically consulted thereon.
Guess who sponsored that law. It was a non-lawyer, Sen. Lito Lapid, a former actor without a college degree who was the usual target of the derisive jokes of the intelligentsia and the media. I credit him for his unexpected feat.
I understand there are moves at present in the Supreme Court to adopt a rule requiring all lawyers to render a certain number of pro bono hours for the benefit of the rural and urban poor and the local communities and basic sectors as a prerequisite for the continuing active status of their licenses. I welcome such a move.
At present, Filipino senior citizens are entitled to the following benefits, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9257 (the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003):
(1) Free medical and dental service, diagnostic and laboratory fee (such as, but not limited, to x-rays, computerized tomography scans and blood tests) in all government facilities.
(2) Exemption from income taxes provided their income does not exceed the poverty level; and exemption from training fees for socio-economic programs.
(3) A 20-percent discount from hotels and similar lodging establishments; restaurants and recreation centers; drugstores; funeral parlors; theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, carnivals and similar places of culture, leisure and amusements; medical and dental services, and diagnostic and laboratory fees (such as, but not limited to, x-rays, computerized tomography scans and blood tests), including the professional fees of attending doctors in all private hospitals and medical facilities; domestic air and sea travel; and public railways, skyways and bus fares.
(4) There are other benefits that have no specific amounts, like “educational assistance… to the extent practicable and feasible, the continuance of the same benefits given by the GSIS, SSS and Pag-ibig… to the extent possible, special discounts… on purchase of basic commodities.”
(5) “Provision of express lanes… in all commercial and business establishments; in the absence thereof, priority shall be given to them.”
Maybe it is time to start a public debate on the above issues.
May I reproduce below an article of former Chief Justice Art Panganiban.
With Due Respect
Seniors’ privileges
By Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:35:00 02/15/2009
LAST Sunday, I commended—among others—retiring Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna’s ponencia upholding the constitutionality of the 20-percent senior citizens’ discount. In reaction, readers asked me to explain the extent and coverage of the seniors’ privileges. Ambassador Ramon J. Farolan, in tandem with Vice President Noli L. de Castro, has long been championing the senior citizens’ cause. In support of their advocacy, I am answering the questions.
Benefits for seniors. Republic Act 9257 (the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003), which became effective on March 21, 2004, granted senior citizens (those who are at least 60 years old) several benefits, mainly the following:
(1) Free medical and dental service, diagnostic and laboratory fee (such as, but not limited, to x-rays, computerized tomography scans and blood tests) in all government facilities.
(2) Exemption from income taxes provided their income does not exceed the poverty level; and exemption from training fees for socio-economic programs.
(3) A 20-percent discount from hotels and similar lodging establishments; restaurants and recreation centers; drugstores; funeral parlors; theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, carnivals and similar places of culture, leisure and amusements; medical and dental services, and diagnostic and laboratory fees (such as, but not limited to, x-rays, computerized tomography scans and blood tests), including the professional fees of attending doctors in all private hospitals and medical facilities; domestic air and sea travel; and public railways, skyways and bus fares.
(4) There are other benefits that have no specific amounts, like “educational assistance… to the extent practicable and feasible, the continuance of the same benefits given by the GSIS, SSS and Pag-ibig… to the extent possible, special discounts… on purchase of basic commodities.”
(5) “Provision of express lanes… in all commercial and business establishments; in the absence thereof, priority shall be given to them.”
In general, the 20-percent discount “shall be allowed as deduction from the gross income” of the establishments that granted it. In this sense, the privilege is not really a “sales discount” from the selling price but—in the words of the Supreme Court in Carlos Super Drug vs Dept. of Social Welfare (June 29, 2007)—“a tax deduction scheme” that reduces the gross taxable income, and ultimately, the income tax to be paid by the establishment. Viewed in another way, the 20-percent seniors’ discount is partially absorbed by the State via a tax reduction granted to the seller.
Promos do not nullify law. Comes now a common question posed by readers, “Some hotels like the Shangri-la and the Peninsula sell discount or promo cards that entitle the buyers to a 20-percent reduction on the entire purchase made by the cardholder. However, their restaurant outlets refuse to honor a further 20-percent discount for consumptions of senior citizens only. Are they correct?”
I do not think so. The initial 20-percent reduction is a voluntary sales discount or promo given by the hotel to all cardholders regardless of age. This discount is deducted from the regular selling price. On the other hand, the seniors’ discount is computed only on the consumptions or purchases made by the elderly, and is deducted from the seller’s gross income that, as earlier explained, results in lower income taxes for the seller. It is a reduction imposed by the law, not by the seller.
The hotel promo is given to all customers regardless of age. Hence, the resulting price is really the selling price from which the elderly should get their legally mandated discount. Promos and discounts given to all customers cannot nullify, modify or circumvent the senior citizens law.
To avoid any confusion and to give our elderly what is legally due them, I think the mayors and the Office of the Senior Citizens Affairs in the cities concerned, with the help of Vice President De Castro, should clarify this matter soonest.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090215-189367/Seniors-privileges
