Filipino Values Tested: SM Malls vs. The Rights of the Elderly and Disabled

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 30, 2924

IN THE Philippines, honoring the elderly is more than just a cultural norm—it’s an essential part of national identity. This respect is deeply embedded in public policies, from the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277) to Republic Act 10754, which guarantee expanded privileges for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs), including senior citizens. One of the most visible signs of this respect is the establishment of express lanes in commercial and government centers, ensuring that seniors and PWDs are prioritized in their access to services. These laws reflect a nation that values its elders not just in word, but in action.

Yet, despite these laws, SM, one of the Philippines’ largest mall chains, has emerged as a controversial figure, seemingly undermining these legal protections. The recent uproar centers around SM’s refusal to provide an express lane for a disabled person purchasing a ticket for a K-pop concert. The mall’s stance that its “first come, first serve” policy ensures fairness stands in stark contrast to the DOJ’s legal opinion and the prevailing cultural norms of prioritizing the elderly and the disabled.

The DOJ’s Staunch Support for the Law and Tradition

The Department of Justice (DOJ), in a legal opinion issued on September 19, 2024, clarified the ambiguity, leaving no room for misinterpretation. The DOJ stated unequivocally that the law demands express lanes for PWDs and, in their absence, priority in all transactions. The Justice department pointed to the implementing rules of RA 10754, emphasizing that the law uses the word “all” to ensure comprehensive coverage of all establishments—commercial or government. The DOJ’s argument hinges on the principle of statutory interpretation: when the law is clear, it must be applied literally, and in this case, the law provides no exemptions for limited-quantity goods or tickets.

The DOJ further supported its position with the equal protection clause, which permits valid classifications based on reason, and in this context, recognizes PWDs as a distinct class deserving of unique treatment. These arguments align with the ethical standards in the Philippines, where laws are designed to uphold values of inclusivity and respect for the elderly and disabled. The DOJ’s interpretation follows a legal precedent established by the Philippine Supreme Court, wherein specific protection and prioritization of vulnerable groups, like PWDs and seniors, are upheld to ensure equality in substance, not merely in form.

SM’s Argument and Potential Justifications

SM’s defense, however, raises complex questions about fairness and practicality. The mall argues that express lanes are a privilege, not a right, and that the “first come, first serve” system ensures equality by treating all customers the same. From a business perspective, this might seem equitable, especially in situations where resources, such as concert tickets, are in limited supply. SM’s lawyers contend that prioritizing one group could disadvantage others, infringing on the rights of non-PWDs or non-senior citizens, who also have legitimate claims to fairness.

While the DOJ emphasizes the priority of PWDs, SM’s position echoes broader concerns about the limits of accommodation in high-demand situations. There is a question of whether the legal mandate for express lanes can be practically applied in cases like concert ticket sales, where high demand and limited supply present logistical challenges. Furthermore, SM’s stance can be loosely grounded in RA 7394, the Consumer Act of the Philippines, which aims to ensure that consumer transactions are conducted fairly, and in some instances, the “first come, first serve” principle may align with this objective.

Challenges to the Enforcement of PWD-Friendly Laws

While the legal framework is in place, implementing these provisions consistently is another matter entirely. One major obstacle is the lack of clarity in certain situations, such as ticket sales, where the law’s intent might not fully account for commercial realities like limited supply. Moreover, some establishments lack the infrastructure or staff training necessary to enforce these provisions effectively. The Philippines, despite its robust laws, still faces gaps in the enforcement of accessibility standards. Many businesses, especially smaller establishments, are either unaware of the laws or incapable of complying with them due to resource constraints.

Additionally, while the DOJ’s opinion provides clear guidance, it lacks the force of law, and without stringent enforcement mechanisms, businesses may continue to interpret the law in ways that suit their interests. The cultural respect for the elderly and disabled is thus at risk of being overshadowed by commercial pressures unless regulatory bodies, including local government units and advocacy groups, step in to enforce compliance.

Recommendations for Seniors, Establishments, and Government

To safeguard the rights of PWDs and senior citizens while balancing the concerns of businesses, several actions must be taken.

For Seniors and PWDs: Increased awareness of their rights under the law is essential. They should be empowered to advocate for themselves in situations where their legal protections are ignored. This can be supported by government campaigns aimed at educating PWDs and senior citizens about the benefits they are entitled to.
For Establishments: Businesses like SM must reconsider their policies and invest in infrastructure that ensures compliance with PWD laws. They could also explore technological solutions, such as digital ticket queues for PWDs, which allow priority without disrupting the broader consumer experience. Additionally, establishments should receive training on how to balance business operations with ethical and legal obligations to vulnerable customers.
For the Government: The DOJ’s legal opinion, though powerful, should be translated into stronger legislation with clear penalties for non-compliance. Government agencies should conduct regular audits of businesses to ensure compliance with PWD laws, while also working with the private sector to develop creative, workable solutions that respect both the rights of PWDs and the practicalities of commercial operations.

Conclusion

:SM’s violation of both tradition and law is more than just a legal misstep—it underscores a deeper issue within Philippine society: the tension between commercial goals and respect for human dignity. The DOJ’s opinion affirms that the rights of the elderly and PWDs are not optional but legally binding entitlements. But as enforcement gaps remain, the true test is whether we will confront the systemic failures that allow such injustices to persist. To honor the promise of these laws, we must rebuild a system where respect for our most vulnerable is not negotiable but guaranteed.