The Senior Citizens Act

RA 7432 as amended by RA 9257 and 9994

Who are Senior Citizen?

Senior citizen refers to a resident citizen of the Philippines at least sixty (60) years old. It includes
Filipinos with dual citizenship status, provided they have at least six (6) months residency in the
Philippines.

What are privileges of Senior Citizens?

1. 20% discount and exemption from the valued-added tax (VAT) for their exclusive use and
enjoyment of the following:

( Exclusive use and enjoyment means for personal consumption only)

a. Purchase of Medicines

b. Professional fees of attending physician

c. Professional fees of health workers

d. Medical and Dental Services, Diagnostics and Laboratory Fees

e. Medical and Dental Services, Diagnostics and Laboratory fees

f. Actual fare for land transportation travel

g. Actual fare for air and sea transportation

h. Utilization of services in hotels, restaurants and recreation centers

Except: Non-profit, stock golf and country clubs which are not open to the general public,
and are private and for exclusive membership only are not mandated to give the 20% senior
citizens discount.

Exception to the Exception: However, if restaurants and food establishments inside these
country clubs are independent concessionaries and the foods sold are not consumable items
under club membership dues, they are obliged to grant the 20% senior citizen discount.

i. Funeral and burial services

The discount accrues to the beneficiary or any person who shouldered the funeral and
burial expenses of the deceased senior citizen. Funeral and burial expenses cover the
cost casket, urn, embalming, cremation, pick-up from the hospital morgue, transport of
the body to intended burial site and other related services such as wake cost. The
discount does not cover obituary publication and purchase of the memorial lot.
Issues and Ruling:

1. Whether or not that the discount benefits given to the Senior Citizen constitute eminent domain
with just compensation?

No because in the case of Carlos Superdrug Corporation vs. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130, June 29, 2007,
the Supreme Court has held that the permanent reduction in the drugstores total revenues is a forced
subsidy corresponding to the taking of private property for public use or benefit, which constitutes
compensable taking for which the owners would ordinarily become entitled to a just compensation; Just
compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator; A tax deduction does not offer full reimbursement of the senior citizen discount-as such, it
would not meet the definition of just compensation.

2. Whether or not 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?

Yes because in the case of Carlos Superdrug Corporation vs. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130, June 29,
2007, the Supreme Court has held that the Senior Citizens Act was enacted primarily to maximize the
contribution of senior citizens to nation-building, and to grant benefits and privileges to them for their
improvement and well-being as the State considers them an integral part of our society.

3. Whether or not RA 9257, Expanded Senior Citizen Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police
power?

Yes because in the case of Carlos Superdrug Corporation vs. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130, June 29,
2007, the Supreme Court has held that the RA 9257 is a legitimate exercise of police power which,
similar of eminent domain, has general welfare for its object; When the conditions so demand as
determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because
property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare; Police power as an
attribute to promote the common good would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of property
owners that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital, a questioned provision is invalidated.

4. Whether or not Section 4(a) of RA 9257, Expanded Senior Citizen Act of 2003, is
unconstitutional?

No because in the case of Carlos Superdrug Corporation vs. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130, June 29, 2007,
the Supreme Court has held that without sufficient proof that Section 4(a) of RA 9257 is arbitrary, and
that the continued implementation of the same would be unconscionably detrimental to petitioners,
the Court will refrain from quashing a legislative act.

2. Exemption from the payment of individual income taxes. (This applies only to Senior Citizens
who are minimum wage earners)

3. 5% discount on the monthly utilization of water and electricity supplied by public utilities
(This is available only on a per household basis regardless of the number of senior citizens
residing therein and the conditions are:

a. The meter must be registered in the name of the senior citizen residing therein
b. The monthly consumption must not exceed one hundred (100) kilowatt hours of electricity
and thirty (30) cubic meters of water