Malacañang urged the public to recognize existing programs for elderly Filipinos following criticism that the government is failing to meet their needs.
In a press briefing on Friday, Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration has prioritized aid for senior citizens, whom she described as part of the “vulnerable sectors.”
“[Elderly Filipinos] are considered part of the so-called ‘vulnerable sectors’ that are truly given priority assistance. They are also entitled to a 50 percent discount on MRT and LRT fares,” Castro said in Filipino.
The Palace issued the clarification as public debate intensified over Senate Bill No. 396, or the “Parents Welfare Act of 2025,” refiled by Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson. The bill seeks to penalize children who abandon their aging, sick, or incapacitated parents. Proposed penalties include imprisonment of six to ten years and a fine of at least P300,000.
When asked for the Palace’s stand on the measure, Castro pointed to existing provisions in the Family Code, which already require mutual support between parents and children.
“Even before Sen. Lacson said anything, this was already provided for in the Family Code. Children are obliged, and parents are also obliged, to support each other,” she explained.
She added that a thorough review of the bill’s language would be necessary to assess whether criminalizing abandonment is appropriate and constitutionally sound.
The bill has sparked mixed reactions online. Critics argue that the state’s current support system for the elderly is insufficient, placing too much burden on children. Some also warned that the law could be misused by abusive parents.
In response, Lacson clarified that his bill includes safeguards to prevent such abuse.
“Abuse, abandonment or neglect by parents of their children are exempting circumstances. Under the proposed measure, a child has no obligation to support a parent who abuses, abandons or neglects them,” he said in a separate statement.
His office also emphasized that the bill would not force financial obligations on children who are unable to provide support, countering claims that it would institutionalize them as mandatory breadwinners.
