SENATE OKAYS AICS BILL ON FINAL READING, IMPOSES PENALTIES FOR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS

THE Senate on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, approved on third and final reading Senate Bill No. 1966 under Committee Report No. 46, a landmark measure institutionalizing the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s (DSWD) Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS) program and imposing stiff penalties against fraudulent claims and unauthorized distribution of government aid.

The proposed measure, otherwise known as the AICS Act, seeks to establish a permanent and transparent framework for the delivery of emergency financial assistance to indigent, vulnerable, and disadvantaged Filipinos facing medical, burial, transportation, educational, food, and other crisis-related expenses.

Under the bill, individuals who falsify documents, misrepresent information, divert funds, or unlawfully facilitate the release of assistance may face imprisonment, fines, or both, depending on the gravity of the offense. 

The measure likewise penalizes public officials and employees found exploiting the program for political or personal gain. 

“No public officials holding elective positions, electoral candidates, politicians, political parties, or any of their representatives, except for officials having direct administrative and executive authority over the DSWD shall influence, be present during, participate in, or otherwise take part in the actual distribution of cash assistance and other forms of assistance under this Act,” the measure states.

Several unlawful acts related to the implementation and distribution of AICS were identified in the bill, particularly prohibiting elective or appointive government officials, employees, their agents, representatives, and relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity from interfering in the implementation of the law or the delivery of AICS assistance to qualified beneficiaries. 

It also penalizes officials or employees who distribute aid to unqualified recipients, give preferential treatment to relative  within the third degree or other favored beneficiaries, or exclude qualified recipients from assistance programs in their respective local government units. 

In addition, the measure considers it unlawful for individuals or organizations to defraud the government through falsified or misleading documents, use fraudulent means to obtain assistance, coerce beneficiaries into surrendering part of their aid, or falsely claim affiliation with the DSWD to solicit payments or promise priority access to assistance.

Penalties ranging from suspension to imprisonment are imposed under the measure. 

Any person convicted of interfering in the implementation of the law or the delivery of AICS assistance may face six months imprisonment, without prejudice to other liabilities under existing laws and regulations. 

Elective or appointive government officials or employees found guilty of distributing aid to unqualified recipients, giving preferential treatment to relatives or favored beneficiaries, or excluding qualified recipients may be penalized with imprisonment of one to six years and suspension from service for up to one year. 

Private individuals involved in the same offenses may also face imprisonment of one to six years.

The measure also penalizes individuals or organizations that use falsified documents or fraudulent means to obtain assistance, coerce beneficiaries into surrendering part of their aid, or falsely claim affiliation with the DSWD. 

First-time offenders may face a one-year suspension from availing DSWD assistance, while second and subsequent offenses may carry imprisonment ranging from one to six years. 

If the offender is an organization, the measure provides that its president, manager, or responsible officers who participated in or benefited from the violations may face imprisonment of six to 10 years, without prejudice to separate actions that may be filed against the organization before the appropriate government agency.

Following Senate approval, the measure will proceed to bicameral deliberations to reconcile its disagreeing provisions with the House of Representatives’ version before transmitting the bicameral conference committee report to the Office of the President for his  signature and the measure’s enactment into law.