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 industry trade organization challenged the legality of an administrative order issued by an executive agency under authority delegated to the agency by Republic Act No. 7394. The administrative order prescribed the manner of placing a legislatively mandated health warning on cigarette and cigar packaging and in cigarette advertisements, requiring, among other things, that the health warning appear on the front and back panels of packaging and occupy at least twenty-five percent of each panel. The Court held that the Act’s delegation of power to the executive agency was valid. Additionally, the Court held that the administrative order complied with the guiding principles set out in the Act in most respects, finding that the obligation to place health warnings on front and back panels rather than side panels complied with the Act's requirement that the health warnings be located in a "conspicuous place" and that the advertising regulations were necessary to effectively implement of the Act. However, the Court held that the administrative order’s alteration of the Act's wording of the warning and requirement that the warning should be placed on two panels of the packaging rather than in a single “conspicuous place” invalidly exceeded the authority granted by the Act.