When citizens are LIED to

Senior citizen or not we are all victims of LIED.

In the war against terrorists, most soldiers will tell you that the thing they fear the most is an IED or an Improvised Explosive Device. There is no sure way to detect it and the only certain thing about an IED is that its kill ratio is even greater than its ability to injure.

The terrorists quickly disappear and leave the victims and the authorities to deal with the destruction and the confusion.

With this in mind, I noticed some similarity between terrorists and some lawmakers who create legislation intended for maximum publicity or popularity, but just like terrorists, they write laws that ultimately cause ruin, confusion and conflict.

I would call these acts of legislation as L.I.E.D or Legislative Improvised Explosive Devices. Legislative Improvisation by my terms, are laws not carefully studied or considered (intentionally) but are passed for purposes of popularity and eventually become explosive controversies.

How many times have we seen laws being passed but do not contain provisions and mechanisms for funding or implementation. The Armed Forces Modernization Act, the Clean Air Act, The Expanded Senior Citizens Act, or a host of other laws that start out with seemingly great ideas or meeting serious needs but are really all talk but no real solutions.

They pass a popular law with no implementing guidelines or IRR so they can do a sequel that gives them more opportunities for publicity. In Tagalog “binabalik-balikan”.

Almost always, Legislative Improvisations leave the problems of funding and implementation to the Executive department or some other office in government. The bad part is in many cases Legislative Improvisation is about political opportunism. Pass a popular law and let others deal with the headache.

What makes it worse is that in many cases, some legislators would even go as far as “taking from Pedro to please Juan”.

Legislations are passed in order to solve problems or meet certain needs. Laws should stand on their own merits and mechanisms. On that basis, any and all laws should solve problems without creating or causing problems in the implementation of other laws. Unfortunately that is what’s happening with the “Expanded Senior Citizens Act”.

Giving more benefits to senior citizens is a very good idea that is timely and seriously needed. What’s wrong with the law is the mechanism by which those expanded benefits are to be given. One law is in effect abridging or interfering with another law.

I have no problems making amendments to the Evat law but I cannot support the passing of a law that undermines another.

The Senior Citizens Act should have contained a mechanism that compensates, funds, or provides financial assistance to senior citizens for critical or crucial needs but not an across the board discount on any sale or purchase amounting to 32%. Let us not use sentimentality knowing that in many instances discounts have been abused or taken advantage of.

If active taxpayers are not entitled to 20% discount and 12% EVAT exemption for hotels, airlines, malls or vehicle purchases why seduce senior citizens with a law that in real terms can be economically disruptive if not dangerous?

Why didn’t the lawmakers provide other forms of support and assistance deliverable through a government office such as the SSS, the GSIS, the DOH or DSWD. All the lawmakers needed to do, was copy existing programs now implemented by the government like the P500 assistance for electric consumers in rural areas etc.

But instead of working out the possible complications, the authors passed the law and are now accusing the President of being anti-Lolo or anti-Lola. In this instance not only do they keep coming back for more PR points (binabalik-balikan) they are actually doing a “Lagareng Hapon” or cutting both ways like a Japanese saw. They become popular in one stroke while they make PGMA unpopular in their counter stroke.

Not only are LIEDs legislatively contradictory, there is also the unseen danger that such short sightedness creates.

A very popular radio talk show host commented that PGMA should pass the Expanded Senior Citizens Act because it only involves around two million Lolos and Lolas and the government will only be giving up about P500 million annually.

The problem with that view is that senior citizens are not a diminishing population like World War II veterans.

The number of senior citizens will continue to grow each year and with improving health care practices or lifestyle, it is certain that today’s two million will be next year’s four million and so on and so forth. As that population grows it will eat away at taxes that were meant to be collected.

So in short, those legislators who claim to have the interests of senior citizens in mind have actually taken everybody for a ride at the government’s expense.

What looked like a very promising and popular bill turns out to be mediocre work and now we have all been LIED to! –Cito Beltran (The Philippine Star)