Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero is advocating for a broader definition of “indigency” in the country, arguing that current government standards are far too restrictive and exclude millions of Filipinos from accessing critical public services.
Speaking on his latest podcast, the veteran lawmaker noted that existing frameworks rely too heavily on fixed income metrics or membership in the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). Consequently, middle-income earners and professionals like teachers—who earn above the minimum wage—are left without aid when hit with sudden, overwhelming financial burdens.
“Indigency, therefore, should also be defined by circumstance, and not just income,” Escudero said.
Escudero highlighted that the criteria for identifying indigent individuals remains inconsistent across the government.
While barangays issue certificates based on the Local Government Code, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) aligns its criteria with Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) thresholds, and the 4Ps relies on the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s (DSWD) target list.
“What does ‘indigency’ really mean? Does it mean being a 4Ps beneficiary? The problem with our laws is that they treat indigency as having a single definition. But for me, there are different levels of indigency,” Escudero noted.
To address the gap, Escudero suggested creating specialized classifications based on specific hardships, such as identifying families with severe health conditions as “cancer-indigent” or those unable to afford court fees as “litigation-indigent.”
“It’s like filing for a declaration of nullity of marriage—it isn’t exactly easy to just come up with the ₱200,000 to ₱500,000 needed for the expenses, right? So, in that case, one is ‘litigation-indigent.’ If a family member falls ill with something like cancer, your family becomes ‘cancer-indigent,’” he explained.
Atty. Maggie Abraham-Garduque, who appeared as a guest on Escudero’s podcast, expressed support for the proposal, adding that adopting such nuanced classifications is constitutionally permissible under the equal protection clause.