Philippine Tobacco Institute v. Secretary of Health
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 7394. The administrative order prescribed the manner of placing a legislatively mandated health warning on cigarette and cigar packaging, 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 trial court held that portions of the order exceeded the authority granted to the agency by the Act, finding that the altered wording of the warning and the requirement that the warning should be placed on two panels of the packaging rather than in a single "conspicuous place" were invalid. Here, the Appellate Court upheld the finding that the administrative order's alteration of the Act's wording of the warning was invalid. However, the Court overturned the finding that the warning placement requirement was invalid, noting that the regulation corresponded to the Act and that the agency possessed discretionary authority to implement the purpose of the law in an effective manner within the guidelines set by the legislature.
Philippine Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. Secretary of Health, CA-G.R. CV. No. 49376, Philippines Court of Appeals (2000).
Philippines
Feb 10, 2000
Republic of the Philippines, Court of Appeals, Manila, Sixth Division
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The legislative branch, through its tobacco control legislation, may have granted too much authority to the executive branch to implement measures administratively.
Any combustible tobacco product that is designed to be smoked – other than cigarettes – including cigars, cigarillos, little cigars, blunts, and bidis or beedis (small, flavored filterless Indian cigarettes).
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.
"(1) The trial court should have conspicuously ruled that the side panel of the cigarette pack is within the contemplation of the requirement that the warning be located in a "conspicuous place". It reasoned out (a) the side panel as a location for the health warning is a "conspicuous place" as defined by Webster (b) the congressional discussion clearly showed that the intent of R.A. 7394 with respect to the location of the warning label on the cigarette pack is to require the label to be placed on any side panel and (c) the warning label printed on the side panel of the cigarette pack is consistent with common usage, as required by law. (2) The DOH secretary cannot prohibit the printing of the health warning on the side panel of the cigarette pack since the law itself R.A. 7394 does not provide for such prohibition. (3) The requirement of reasonableness in administrative rules and regulations was not complied with for the reason that cigarette products were singled out to carry frontal health warnings."
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 7394. The administrative order prescribed the manner of placing a legislatively mandated health warning on cigarette and cigar packaging, 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 trial court held that portions of the order exceeded the authority granted to the agency by the Act, finding that the altered wording of the warning and the requirement that the warning should be placed on two panels of the packaging rather than in a single "conspicuous place" were invalid. Here, the Appellate Court upheld the finding that the administrative order's alteration of the Act's wording of the warning was invalid. However, the Court overturned the finding that the warning placement requirement was invalid, noting that the regulation corresponded to the Act and that the agency possessed discretionary authority to implement the purpose of the law in an effective manner within the guidelines set by the legislature.