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 appellate court held, in part, that the provision of the administrative order that required placement of a legislatively mandated health warning on both the front and back panels of cigarette and cigar product packaging was validly promulgated as an exercise of authority granted to the agency by the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the trade organization's petition for review of the appellate court decision on procedural grounds. Here, the Supreme Court denied the trade organization's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, noting that the trade organization provided no compelling reason to reconsider the prior decision.