October 16, 2026 | 7:00am
The logo of the Supreme Court at the Supreme Court Building in Manila.
Philstar.com / Ian Laqui
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court should issue a clear elaboration on its ruling barring the application of a senior citizen discount after other promotional discounts have been applied, a senior citizen advocate said.
In a statement on Thursday, October 15, senior citizen advocate and lawyer Romulo Macalintal warned that the decision could be exploited by business establishments to evade granting senior citizen discounts.
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling released in a press briefer on October 14, senior citizens cannot stack their statutory 20% discount on top of existing promotional prices, reinforcing that elderly consumers must choose between the promotional price and the statutory 20% discount, whichever yields greater savings.
While the ruling acquitted a hotel executive in Bacolod City after finding that the guests had already received a 20% discount through a pre-negotiated group rate, Macalintal emphasized that the public briefer lacks critical legal distinctions.
Macalintal pointed out that the denial of the discount in the Bacolod hotel case stemmed specifically from a pre-negotiated group association rate rather than a standard commercial sales promotion.
Without explicit clarification from the justices, he warned that commercial establishments might improperly label regular transactions or self-run "house promos" as promotional offers to deny elderly customers their rightful 20% discount.
“This clarification is very crucial and imperative because establishments may have the impression that they can just conduct promos on their own or run house promos to deny a senior citizen their 20% discount,” Macalintal’s statement read.
“This distinction is vital. Without it, establishments might falsely label regular transactions as ‘promos’ to evade granting senior discounts, entirely defeating the protective intent of the law,” he added.
Addressing the legal mechanism behind promotional pricing, Macalintal stressed that under Article 116 of Republic Act No. 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines, any company intending to conduct a promotional campaign must first secure a permit from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) before launching the offer.
According to Macalintal, an establishment cannot legally invoke the non-concurrence or "double-discount" rule unless the promotion has prior approval from the DTI and is set for a specified timeframe.
“Clearly, an establishment conducting a promo without a DTI permit is still obligated to extend to a senior citizen the 20% discount over and above the unauthorized promo price,” Macalintal said.
Macalintal also pointed out that the prohibition against double-discounting does not strip senior citizens of their statutory value-added tax exemption.
He also urged the high court to clarify in its full written decision that senior citizens utilizing hotel services remain entitled to their 12% VAT exemption alongside their applicable price reduction.