A smoker was accused of violating a Davos City ordinance prohibiting smoking in enclosed public spaces. The smoker argued that the city ordinance was superseded by the subsequent federal Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003. He argued the new act contained a definition of enclosed spaces that did not coincide with the circumstances of his arrest. The court found that there was a conflict between the two laws with the municipal law being vague and that the restaurant where the smoker was caught did not meet the enclosed spaces definition of the new law. The smoker was thus found not to have violated the law.
Philippines v. Torrijos Case No. 114,961-G-2003
Philippines
Apr 16, 2004
Municipal Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 7
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.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"This Court finds merit in the contention of the accused that the definition of an enclosed space in the CASO is vague at best. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that due to the vagueness of the said definition, the local government
of Davao City has used the rule of thumb that any place with a roof is deemed to be an enclosed space. Under this definition, Cynthia's Lechon House, where the accused is claimed to have been caught smoking, would definitely be an
enclosed space and thus, his alleged actions would have been covered by the ordinance. On the other hand, an enclosed space is defined under the Implementing Rules of RA 92111 as: "Rule III, Section 1.8- Enclosed Area - refers to an area that is physically separated from adjacent areas by walls or partitions and a roof or ceiling. The walls or partitions must be continuous, interrupted only by doors and windows. The mere presence of a roof or ceiling over the structure, but without walls or partitions surrounding said structure, does not constitute an enclosed area." Under this definition, it could be said that Cynthia's Lechon House could be said to be not enclosed. Thus, the alleged actions of the accused would not be considered criminal. ln view of this disparity between the CASO and RA9211, which disparity is determinative of the existence or non-existence of criminal liability, this Court cannot help but to conclude that there is indeed an irreconcilable conflict between the two laws which, as stated above, will necessarily result to the repeal of the penal provisions of the CASO under which the accused is charged."
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 smoker was accused of violating a Davos City ordinance prohibiting smoking in enclosed public spaces. The smoker argued that the city ordinance was superseded by the subsequent federal Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003. He argued the new act contained a definition of enclosed spaces that did not coincide with the circumstances of his arrest. The court found that there was a conflict between the two laws with the municipal law being vague and that the restaurant where the smoker was caught did not meet the enclosed spaces definition of the new law. The smoker was thus found not to have violated the law.