Senate bill seeks to penalize children who abandon elderly parents
In the explanatory note of Senate Bill No. 396 or the proposed "Parents Welfare Act of 2025," Lacson stressed that taking care of the elderly members of society is a shared responsibility of the children and the government.
'This proposed bill therefore seeks to further strengthen filial responsibility and to make it a criminal offense in case of flagrant violation thereof. Abandonment of a parent in need of support shall likewise constitute a criminal act,' the returning senator said.
Under the proposed measure, parents in need of support who are unable to maintain themselves from their own earning or out of the property they owned, or who are incapacitated or incapable of supporting themselves, shall be given support by their children.
If the parent concerned has several children, the support to be given shall be divided among them in proportion to their resources or financial capacity and in such manner as may be just and equitable.
Grandchildren shall also be liable to support their ascendants if their parents cannot fulfill their duty to support due to death, illness or if they are unable to fully take care of themselves due to physical or mental disability or condition.
The children shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the support fixed by a 'support order' or by receiving and maintaining in the family house of the parent concerned.
Such a petition for support may be filed in the regional trial court with territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner.
The legal representation of the parent in need of support will be provided by the Public Attorney's Office and no court fees will be assessed.
Before hearing the petition, the court shall also refer the parties to a conciliation officer for mediation to preserve the family unity and peace.
If the children so ordered fail to comply with the support order without sufficient cause or reason, the court may issue a warrant for levying the amount due for every breach of order. If the respondent fails to give support for three consecutive months without justifiable cause, the respondent shall face imprisonment of one to six months or a fine of P100,000.
Whoever has the care or protection of a parent in need of support and abandons such parent will also face six to 10 years in jail and a fine of P300,000. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
9 hours ago
- GMA Network
Heated debates or not? Senators ready decision on VP Sara impeachment
Senators are now gearing up for proceedings on Wednesday when the upper chamber decides on how it would proceed with the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, following the Supreme Court (SC) ruling declaring the Articles of Impeachment unconstitutional. In an ambush interview, Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa said that should there be a motion in the plenary on Wednesday, August 6, to dismiss the Vice President's impeachment case, the so-called Duterte bloc will "most likely" vote in favor of it. However, he clarified that the Duterte bloc has not discussed anything on the matter. Dela Rosa also said he believes that there's no need for debates among senators, stressing that the SC decision is immediately executory even as the House of Representatives already filed a motion for reconsideration. "In the first place nga para sa akin, there's no need for debates. Bakit pagdebatehan 'yan nagsalita na ang Supreme Court eh. Nagdesisyon na ang Supreme Court, bakit mag-debate pa tayo? Hindi ako lawyer…pero naniwala ako that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God," he said. (In the first place, I believe that there's no need for debates. Why should we still debate on that when the Supreme Court has already spoken? I'm not a lawyer... but I believe that nobody is supreme and above the Supreme Court, except God.) "Tignan natin kung ano magsipaglabasan bukas. Ayaw kong magsalita ng tapos. Pero kung tanungin niyo ako, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked," he added. (Let's see what comes out tomorrow. I don't want to preempt anything, but if you ask me, I am very much inclined to support and obey the decision of the Supreme Court. No questions asked.) Dela Rosa said he was still willing to listen to the arguments of his fellow senators, particularly the four who signed a draft resolution on how the Senate can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial after the SC ruling. "Four versus 20? Maging mainit ba 'yan (Will the debates be heated)? I don't know," he said. Long debates Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said he expects that the debates tomorrow will be long. "Yes, I've read it. I'm ready for tomorrow," Sotto said, referring to the 97-page Supreme Court decision. For his part, Senator Erwin Tulfo said his desire for the impeachment trial to continue still stands, emphasizing that he wants the public to see the evidence on the Articles of Impeachment. "This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision [declaring the articles] unconstitutional. Hanggang ngayon, that is my stand. Gusto ko sanang makita. Pero may limitations na ngayon, 'di ba? So, mayroong sinasabing unconstitutional. So, 'yun ang pinag-aralan ko these past few days and I will be basing my decision diyan sa lumalabas ngayon," Tulfo said in a separate interview. (This was before when the Supreme Court made the decision that the articles are unconstitutional. Until now, that is my stand. I would like to see the evidence. But there are limitations now, right? It was declared unconstitutional. So, that's what I am studying these past few days and I will be basing my decision on what will come out.) He also said he was expecting "heated" debates tomorrow between senators in favor of dismissing the case, and those who want the trial to continue. Voting 13-0-2, the SC earlier declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that these are barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that these violate her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. The House of Representatives on Monday asked the SC to reverse its decision, saying it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate permitted to exercise its power to try the case. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
10 hours ago
- GMA Network
1Sambayan, others ask SC to pause action on Sara impeachment, allow arguments
Political coalition 1Sambayan and others on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a status quo ante order that will pause the proceedings of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a day before the Senate is expected to decide whether to abide by the High Court's ruling that barred the trial. The petitioners filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the impeachment cases as well as to admit their motion for reconsideration, where they asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and to set the case for oral arguments. A status quo order is intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy, according to the SC. '[I]t is judicially wise for this Honorable Court to grant a Status Quo Ante Order that prevents the Senate of the Philippines from taking concrete action such as to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment considering the pending constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved by this Honorable Court,' the petitioners said in their 52-page motion. Among the petitioners were retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and retired Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales. Petitioner Howard Calleja, meanwhile, called on the Senate to hold off from deciding on the impeachment due to the pending petition. 'That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate na sana pakinggan muna itong mga issues. Let us thresh out all the issues bago tayo mag desisyon kung idi-dismiss or whatever 'yung gagawin natin,' he said. (That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate, hopefully they will first listen to these issues first. Let us thresh out all the issues before we decide whether to dismiss or whatever action we will take.) Calleja said that the Senate impeachment court should also continue the trial. 'Pero kung hindi nila maisip na gawin 'yun siguro hingin atin kumbaga mag status quo ante muna tayo. Huwag tayong ora-orada na gagawa ng desisyon kasi nga meron pang pending na ito na pwede mag bago,' he said. (But if they don't think of doing that, we will ask for a status quo ante. Let's not rush into making a decision because this is still pending and could change things.) 'Na sana kung gusto nila galangin ang Korte Suprema, galangin din nila ang proseso at sa pag galang ng proseso, eh medyo—sabi ko nga status quo muna. Hinay-hinay kasi ang proseso hindi pa tapos,' he added. (That hopefully, if they want to respect the SC, they should also respect the process, and in respecting the process—like I said, status quo for now. Let's take it slow because the process isn't over yet.) In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. However, the SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. In their MR, the petitioners said that the SC ruling overturned the Francisco Jr. ruling, where the SC previously said that an impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House. The petitioners argued that the fourth impeachment complaint was filed and acted upon before the House adjourned. They argued that the first three complaints cannot be deemed to have attained the status of being 'initiated.' 'It is respectfully emphasized that the Fourth Complaint had already been approved prior to the adjournment of Congress; hence the effectivity of the one-year ban rule upon adjournment does not affect it,' they said. Aside from this, the petitioners argued that the ruling on the reckoning of the one-year ban will lead to grave consequences. 'Such a rule creates a perverse incentive for an impeachable officer to inoculate himself from accountability simply by causing the filing of sham complaints, because whether the Congress acts on them, the mere filing would already trigger and consume the one-year ban, a result inconsistent with the Constitution,' they said. The petitioners also stressed that the first three complaints never reached the House committee. This is the third motion for reconsideration filed with the SC against its ruling. Last week, some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam, where they asked the High Court to declare the fourth impeachment complaint as constitutional. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives on Monday filed its own motion for reconsideration, arguing that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senate bill eyes imprisonment, fines for malicious use of AI
A measure seeking prison term and a fine of up to P1 million has been filed in the Senate in a bid to protect individuals against the wrongful and improper use of artificial intelligence (AI). Under Senate Bill No. 782, also known as the Physical Identity Protection Act, filed by Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero, any person responsible for creating, generating, reproducing, duplicating, simulating, distributing, disseminating, or publishing any person's physical attributes without their consent in any media content—-regardless of the medium, platform, or point of access used—-will be held criminally liable. 'While this generative Al technology offers tremendous potential particularly in the fields of business, education and communications, it also presents a profound risk to individuals' rights, privacy and identity. With malicious intent and the help of AI and other similar technology, media content could be exploited in efforts to cause personal harm or undermine public trust,' Escudero said in the explanatory note. The bill prescribes the penalty of imprisonment of one to two years or a fine not exceeding P200,000, or both, for individuals who create, generate or share content containing a person's physical attributes without prior consent or legal basis. If the intention of the illegal content is to acquire financial gain or profit, the penalty shall be jail time of two to four years or a fine of P200,000 to P400,000, or both. The measure also imposes a higher penalty of four to six years imprisonment or a fine of P400,000 to P600,000, or both, for content designed to facilitate or commit crime or fraud. Meanwhile, if the act is done to acquire financial gain or profit and to facilitate or commit a crime or fraud, imprisonment of up to 12 years or a fine of P600,000 to P1 million, or both, will be imposed. If the offender is a public official or employee, he or she will be penalized with absolute perpetual disqualification from public office, on top of the maximum penalties prescribed under the bill. 'These interventions provide the government with the wherewithal to address emerging threats, ensure accountability in the use of Al technologies, and promote creativity and innovation without compromising personal rights and liberties, legitimate speech, journalism and news coverage, academic and educational research, documentary and historical piece and other similar works,' Escudero said in a statement. — Giselle Ombay/RSJ, GMA Integrated News
