Gov't favors OFWs over seniors, i.e., assets over liabilities

Belatedly realizing his presidential bid cannot take off solely on the unreliable strength of crisp thousand-peso bills, Senator Manny Pacquiao is now trying a new tack. He is courting the country's roughly 13 million senior citizens. In a multi-cornered fight where 15 million votes can most probably already make one a winner, this is probably the best move the former boxing champion has made so far in his campaign.

The only problem is how seriously the senior citizens are taking Pacquiao. Remember that these are not gullible suckers Pacquiao is trying to deal with. These are grizzled survivors and veterans of life's greatest battles. They have seen and heard everything. Pacquiao is promising them a lot of freebies --hospitalization, checkup, medicine. Pacquiao is not the first to make these promises and won't be the last. Let's see if the seniors bite.

For while they are fairly good promises, they are actually the wrong ones to make. There is no shortage of benefits for citizens 60 years old and above. RA 9994 or the Expanded Senior Citizens Law is a pretty good measure already recognizing the rights and benefits due this segment of society that makes up about 12% of the entire estimated Philippine population of 110 million.

Before any more titillating promises are made to seniors, who by their advanced age and past contributions to society deserve the courtesy and respect of a grateful nation, strict compliance with past promises already embodied in RA 9994 and other measures should first be assured. Of what use is a tomorrow if there is not even a today?

The problem with government, not just this but all governments past and present, is that while it is arguably good in cobbling up good measures, it is almost always a failure in their uses. There is no follow through with strict and proper implementation. RA 9994 is one of the finest examples of a law that is good on paper but not so hot on the ground.

RA 9994 says that in order for a senior citizen to avail of his mandated discounts, all he or she has to do is present "any of the following" proofs of seniority: A senior citizen's card, a passport, any government ID with a picture and birthdate, "or any other document" proving a senior citizen is how old he claims to be. But probably eight out of ten establishments do not know this and would honor only senior citizens IDs.

Early in my seniority I purposely did not secure a senior citizen's ID because I saw with my own eyes how this was being used for political purposes. I relied on either my driver's license or my SSS ID. Again, in probably eight times out of 10, I would get into an argument over my lack of a senior ID. And each time I prevailed with my driver's license or SSS ID and a long litany about RA 9994, I am given a look as if to say "sige na lang, ‘noy."

Many establishments, especially in the provinces, do not have priority lanes for seniors. Many do not give discounts. Those who do will not give the correct one. A common practice is to give discounts only on a portion of the entire bill, not the entire amount. If a senior foots the bill in a restaurant, the discount is taken only from what the senior has taken, not what the entire group has consumed.

Violations of senior citizens' rights and privileges are an open secret. Government is not unaware of them. But in a choice between seniors and, say, OFWs, the government is always on the side of the latter. OFWs are assets in government's eyes. They bring in the dollars. They are more loved than local workers, even if the locals are more numerous and pay bigger taxes. The seniors? They are now liabilities in government's eyes.