INQUIRER FILES
MANILA, Philippines — The Restaurant Owners of the Philippines (Resto PH) has raised concerns over the rising use of fake Persons with Disabilities (PWD) cards, warning that the abuse of the mandated 20 percent discount is taking a serious toll on businesses, especially small and family-run restaurants.
“The PWD discount was created to support those who genuinely need it, but widespread abuse of fake PWD cards is now putting a serious strain on restaurants and other businesses,” the group said in a statement posted on Instagram.
Resto PH stressed that businesses, not the government, shoulder the cost of the discount, which directly affects their revenue.
“For restaurants, especially small and family-run ones, this isn’t just an inconvenience – it’s a financial hit that can mean the difference between survival and closure,” it underscored.
“Every fraudulent discount comes directly out of a restaurant’s pocket, cutting into already thin margins,” it added.
They also warned that when multiple fake PWD cards are used at a single table, it can result in major financial losses, affecting employees, food quality, and menu prices for honest customers.
“We’re asking for fairness. The discount should help those it was meant for, not be a loophole for those looking to save a few pesos at the expense of struggling businesses,” the group said.
Resto PH urged authorities to implement stricter regulations and called on the public to “say no to fake PWD cards” to ensure the discount benefits only those who truly need it.
In December 2024, the Senate Committee on ways and means launched an inquiry into the growing misuse of fake PWD cards across the country.
During the hearing, restaurant owners shared unusual cases of fake PWD cardholders.
Resto PH President Eric Teng recalled instances where pilots presented PWD cards for visual disability.
“In other words, they are legally blind pilots,” Teng said during the hearing.
He also cited a case where a husband and wife had PWD cards with the same serial number, claiming they had a “conjugal disability.”