Ways Forward: Recommendations (SoloParents#6)

WAYS FORWARD:

A. Specific Recommendations

1. The law must be amended to harmonize its provisions with that of the IRR. Not only were there a lot of disparities, there were a lot of insertions and inclusions in the IRR that can be deemed a ultra vires since they have no concrete basis in the original provisions of the law. Such “add-ons” while meant to “correct” certain gaps in the law are certainly “out-of-bounds” and illegal. Such additional requirements and inclusions must now be formalized in the new law.

2. Currently, the Special Review Committee (SRC) established only in the IRR is operating by virtue of a mere Terms of Reference (TOR). Their legal personality must now be formalized in the law as the primary monitoring and coordinating body for the implementation of the Solo Parents Act. Even as this inter-agency body is functioning already, it would still be better that they finally be “institutionalized” through a clear legal authority mandated under an amended law.

3. The true intention of the law that is to provide social protection for a vulnerable sector like single parents can be better exemplified if the real target beneficiaries, that is both the parents and their children, are clearly identified and their situation more deeply analyzed before any programs or services are developed in their favor.

4. As such, it is highly recommended that the bulk of the amendments be focused on the definitions of who can be considered a “Solo Parent”. This would entail some clarifications and considerations such as the inclusion of “adoptive” parents in line with “alternative parental care” similar to foster parents and legal guardians, consideration of “divorced” parents since it is similar to those who are separated, legally or de facto and those whose marriages have been legally annulled.

5. The existing benefits and privileges granted to Solo Parents and their kids should also be reviewed if they are truly responsive to their current needs.  Any limitations on eligibility for benefits based on income bracket or economic status should be clearly anchored on special or additional financial benefits (such as the social pension and free flu vaccines for indigent seniors) prioritizing poorer Solo Parents. Otherwise, the proposed amendments should simply do away with the poverty threshold as a requirement and provide all Solo Parents applicable programs and services regardless of income. It is highly recommended that counseling, stress debriefing, legal advise and other “general” assistance be provided to ALL solo parents. Since leave privileges and flexible work hours are only applicable to those formally employed, other “responsive and applicable” benefits and privileges should be granted to other Solo Parents such kasambahays.

6. The proposed discount privileges in the pending bills are not feasible for a variety of reasons discussed above. Besides the expected resistance from other stakeholders, the real clamor from the Solo Parents sector is for more income generating opportunities, whether it is in the formal or informal sector. And this includes ensuring access to opportunities for self-sufficiency and financial independence of both Solo Parents and their children. Thus, programs and services currently provided by DOLE, CSC, TESDA, PTTC under the DTI, and the DA should be emphasized and strengthened.

7. Speaking of educational needs, the law must ensure that both Solo Parents and their children are able to access formal educational, vocational and technical training opportunities. There are existing programs under the DepEd, CHED and TESDA, and these include scholarships and financial assistance which should be taken advantage of.  Any other new programs seeking to address the needs of the Solo Parent families like quotas and reserved slots in scholarships or MOAs with private educational institutions, must focus on this aspect.

8. Another major issue of concern of Solo Parents is on healthcare needs. Just like educational needs, there are current government programs, specifically under the DOH and the PhilHealth which may be maximized. Hence, these may harnessed and strengthened further.  

9. The need for legal advise and counselling must also be addressed by the proposed amendments. This is especially relevant when the Solo Parent has an accompanying case for VAWC under RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and Children Act of 2003. Even as female Solo Parents enjoy the legal services of women’s rights NGOs, legal assistance must be institutionalized as part of the comprehensive benefits package to be made available to female or male Solo Parents nationwide.

10. Present leave privileges and flexible work schedule should also be expanded to apply to those under MOAs, job orders, and contract of service in the government service. Already this is being enjoyed without distinction in the private sector as per DOLE guidelines, so it would seem fair for CSC to also consider extending this to the thousands of “non-regular” employees in the public sector.

11. Other possible amendments to the law may consider bringing back the additional personal exemption of “Head of the Family” as a different rate from single or married individuals in due recognition of the added burden of “single-income” households.