Sen. Ping Lacson’s bill will not institutionalize children as breadwinners

Please allow us to set the record straight regarding some points in the column of Anna Cristina Tuazon (see “Institutionalizing children as breadwinners,” 7/17/25), where she shared her thoughts on Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson’s Senate Bill No. 396, the proposed Parents Welfare Act of 2025.

While Lacson welcomes healthy debates on the merits of the bill, online attacks by trolls notwithstanding, some points in Tuazon’s column need to be addressed.

First, the bill does not institutionalize children as breadwinners. While it aims to ensure that parents get support from their children in their time of need, it provides that children who have no financial capability to support their parents are not obliged to do so.

The bill takes into account and is guided by existing laws, including no less than the highest law of the land—the 1987 Constitution. Under Article XV, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security.”

Also, Article 195 of the Family Code stresses the legal obligation of each member of the family to support each other. It specifically states that the following “are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article (including) parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter.”

Second, the bill seeks support for parents who are senior citizens, sickly, or who regardless of age are permanently incapacitated or not capable of supporting themselves, but it does not include parents who have abused, abandoned, or neglected their children.

Under Section 16 of the bill, if the court determines after due notice and hearing that the parent in need of support had abandoned, abused or neglected the child, it may dismiss the petition or reduce the quantum of support.

Thus, as Lacson pointed out, abuse, abandonment, or neglect by parents of their children are exempting circumstances. And under such circumstances, the child has no obligation to support parents who have abused, abandoned, or neglected him/her.

Finally, the bill in no way means that the government is passing the burden of supporting elderly parents to the children.

In fact, it provides for an “old age home” for the elderly, sick, or otherwise incapacitated parents in every province and highly urbanized city. Each home shall accommodate at least 50 parents.

Rather, the bill points out that taking care of the elderly members of society is a shared responsibility of the government and the children of said elderly, not an exclusively private matter for the family or for the government.

With these, we hope this will clarify things. Thank you very much.

JOEL LOCSIN,
Office of Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson