In line with the Philippines’ efforts to further boost the local insurance industry, GCash, the country’s leading finance super app, is introducing a new feature to unlock access to insurance for millions of Filipinos.
The e-wallet is providing free health insurance, underwritten by FPG Insurance, every time eligible users buy prepaid credits for themselves using the Buy Load service.
“This initiative, powered by GInsure in partnership with FPG Insurance, reflects the commitment of GCash to making financial protection accessible to every Filipino, ensuring that even the simplest transactions, like buying prepaid load, come with the added security of health coverage at no extra cost,” said Winsley Bangit, vice president and group head of New Businesses at GCash.
Made possible by GInsure, every time eligible users make Buy Load transactions on the GCash app, they can also avail of the free health insurance coverage, empowering users to prepare for unexpected medical expenses due to accidents or hospitalization.
“Beyond just financial assistance, this benefit ensures that users have funds to cover medical costs or compensate for lost income during recovery, helping prevent families from falling deeper into debt and alleviating financial struggles,” Ren-Ren Reyes, president and CEO of GCash mobile wallet operator G-Xchange, Inc.
The free health and accident insurance gives eligible users up to P30,000 coverage and additional valuable benefits. For every load purchase, a user can automatically get P10,000 in accidental death coverage, which can be accumulated up to a maximum of P30,000 when making up to three separate eligible load purchases.
Users can also get income assistance when they’re hospitalized due to illnesses and accidents, allowing them to receive P500 per day salary assistance for a maximum of 5 days. They can also get up to P10,000 disablement benefit, providing the user or their beneficiaries a safety net.
GCash introduced this initiative in response to shifting user needs. With millions of Filipinos still hesitant to fully embrace digital transactions, they still rely on traditional offline methods. (PR)
Expression
The midterm election is over but issues remain in the public mind, chief of them the action by the election commission against candidates who it caught taking liberty at poking sexist statements against their opponents or against the dignity and honor of women. In what the Philippine Commission Women commended as a firm action by the election commission second division in disqualifying Mr. Christian de Guzman Sia as a congressional candidate of the lone district of Pasig City. This disqualification was based on violations of anti-discrimination and fair campaigning guidelines, underscores the importance of upholding gender equality and respectful public discourse during elections.
In its statement following the aforesaid firm action by the election commission, it urged political aspirants to study the provisions of Republic Act 11313 known as the Safe Spaces Act and Republic Act 9710 known as the Magna Carta for Women and other legal provisions, with the invitation reach out to their office for further guidance. On its face, the action is laudable insofar as protecting the rights of women are concerned. But a revisit to the abovementioned laws defines the punishable acts through unwanted remarks directed towards a person, commonly done in the form of wolf-whistling and misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, and sexist slurs. The provision is general but does not include with specificity political campaigns.
On the other hand, there is the fundamental principle in our constitution, statement unequivocally in section 4 of article 3 better known as the bill of rights which states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” Very clearly, the laws upon which the election commission based its action must not violate the constitution. But the regulatory actions of the election commission and the laws it relied upon are clear curtailments of the fundamental freedom of expression. It acted not just as a regulatory body as it usurped a primarily judicial function when it declared the candidates’ statements as violative of its regulations and the laws cited above.
While the intention may be considered good, it cannot be justified in curtailing the right of the people to speak freely. With these actions, people are reminded of the dark days of martial law under the despotic rule of the conjugal partnership of Ferdinand Sr. and Imelda Marcos when during that time the regime boast that people can speak freely even against the dictatorship. But people shiver in fear and cower to the whims of the dictators with the thought that they have no freedom after speaking. People are well aware that even jokes against the dictatorship could send them to prison without any formal charges, warrant or trial. The supposed violators could find themselves behind bars, the unlucky ones just get lost in the middle of night or sent to the great beyond.
We are confronted these days under the rule of the magical president who is the namesake of his dictator father, with a regulation that is protected by the fundamental provision of the constitution regarding the people’s freedom of expression.
comments to alellema@yahoo.com