Collateral benefits of seniors’ discount
If a senior citizen can afford to spend at least P1 million to gain membership in an exclusive golf club and pay five-digit monthly dues, it is fair to assume that the 20-percent discount that the law gives to senior citizens under certain circumstances should be the least of his concerns. Right? Wrong.
In a recent case (Soliman vs Santos), a senior citizen sought to compel Southwoods Golf and Country Club to apply that discount on payments for monthly dues, locker rentals and other charges that pertain to the use of its facilities and equipment.
His complaint went through the gamut of the regional trial court, the Court of Appeals and, finally, the Supreme Court because it involved the interpretation of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010.
The principal bone of contention is a section in the implementing rules and regulations of that law that the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) issued, which reads in part:
“Nonprofit, 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-percent senior citizens discount.”
The DSWD said the discount was meant to benefit the general public and does not apply to clubs that “… exclusively cater to a closed membership made of individuals of the privileged and affluent class.”
In other words, the discount is only for the underprivileged members of our society and not for the wealthy, as in the case of golf club members.
That argument was turned down by the high court. Citing the law’s provision that senior citizens shall be entitled to that discount on the sale of certain enumerated goods and services from all establishments, it declared that section invalid because it amended the law’s intent to make the discount applicable to all sellers of particular goods and services, something the DSWD cannot do.
Based on that premise, the court ordered the club to give its senior citizen members a 20-percent discount on locker rentals and other charges relating to the use of its facilities and equipment (which it considered as the nature of a sale of services), but not to membership dues and other fees collected for the privilege of membership.
That ruling will apply to all golf clubs, recreational facilities and other commercial establishments, whether nonprofit or for profit, if they are similarly situated as Southwoods.
The court’s decision brings to mind the practice of some cities in Metro Manila and the provinces of giving their senior citizens a monthly allowance of P1,000 to P2,000 and cash gifts on the occasion of their birthdays and the holiday season.
If you think only the hoi polloi or financially distressed senior citizens in those places avail of those benefits, you’re mistaken. Many senior citizens who live in gated communities or exclusive subdivisions make an effort and take time to personally get those benefits.
And it has been observed that they do that dressed in branded casual clothes, modestly sprayed with expensive perfume, using air-conditioned SUVs and in the company of smartly dressed caregivers or drivers.
It is a sight to see their SUVs clog the driveway of the office that dispenses the cash gifts and them smiling upon receipt of their money.
The “collateral” beneficiaries of those cities’ policy on taking good care of their elderly residents consider the monetary dole outs, which are drops in the bucket in their coffers, as an opportunity to enjoy, no matter how small, the fruits of the hefty taxes they pay the government. Something like a return on their investment.
The same frame of mind guides them in scrupulously availing of (or demanding) the 20-percent discount when they dine at their favorite posh restaurants or buy their maintenance medicines.
Now, we can say (tongue in cheek) that the rich and the poor are equal in the eyes of the law in this country, at least as far as the senior citizen discount is concerned. INQ
For comments, please send your email to [email protected].
