Fortune Tobacco Corp. v. Inter-Agency Committee - Tobacco
A tobacco company petitioned the Court for a declaratory judgment regarding a tobacco control law that regulated or prohibited tobacco advertisements, except those located within point-of-sale premises. The petitioner requested clarification of three issues: (1) the meaning of "premises" as used in the regulation; (2) the extent of regulation on point-of-sale-advertising materials; and (3) the identities of parties who would be held criminally liable for violations of the regulation. The Court held that "premises" denoted the entire tract of land on which a point-of-sale establishment rested, that the regulation placed no restrictions on advertising materials located within point-of-sale premises, and that the question of criminal liability was reserved for the prosecution to argue during criminal proceedings.
The Court of Appeals later said that procedural rules required the appeal be brought to the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals was required to dismiss the appeal outright.
Fortune Tobacco Corporation v. Inter-Agency Committee - Tobacco, et al., SCA Case No. 2007-688-MK, Philippines Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Marikina City (2008).
Philippines
Feb 14, 2008
Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Marikina City, Branch 263
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Verily, the interpretation of the law subscribed to by respondents is too restrictive. It is elementary that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be derived from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. To go beyond the clear and ordinary import of the words in fact used and in this case with a clear and definite meaning imparted to them [by] the law-making authority would be tantamount to transcending the words of the legislature. In effect, we would be on unchartered seas. Simply put, under the statute it is clear that the area where permissible outdoor advertising may be placed is broad enough to include all areas within the perimeter of said tract of land where a passing patron can purchase or obtain tobacco products. Other than that, no condition has been imposed by the law."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A tobacco company petitioned the Court for a declaratory judgment regarding a tobacco control law that regulated or prohibited tobacco advertisements, except those located within point-of-sale premises. The petitioner requested clarification of three issues: (1) the meaning of "premises" as used in the regulation; (2) the extent of regulation on point-of-sale-advertising materials; and (3) the identities of parties who would be held criminally liable for violations of the regulation. The Court held that "premises" denoted the entire tract of land on which a point-of-sale establishment rested, that the regulation placed no restrictions on advertising materials located within point-of-sale premises, and that the question of criminal liability was reserved for the prosecution to argue during criminal proceedings.
The Court of Appeals later said that procedural rules required the appeal be brought to the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals was required to dismiss the appeal outright.