Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board
GR No L-75697, June 18, 1987
FACTS:
The petition assails the constitutionality of PD No 1987 entitled “An act creating the Videogram Regulatory Board” based on several grounds, including the following: (1) Section 10 of PD No 1987 which imposes a tax of 30% on the gross receipts payable to the local government is a rider and the same is not germane to the subject thereof; (2) the tax imposed is harsh, confiscatory, oppressive and/or in unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the due process of the Constitution; and (3) undue delegation of power and authority.
ISSUE:
Is PD 1987 constitutional?
RULING: Yes.
(1) The contention that the tax provision of the Decree is a rider is bereft and devoid of merit because the title of the Decree, which is the creation of the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) aimed at regulating and controlling the video industry, is comprehensive enough to include the purposes expressed in its preamble and reasonably covers all its provisions. Moreover, it is unnecessary to express all those objectives in the title or that the latter be an index to the body of the decree.
(2) It is axiomatic that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed. The legislature acts upon its constituents in imposing a tax; thus, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation is afforded the taxpayer. Also, the tax imposed by the Decree is a revenue measure. The tax of 30% is exacted for a public purpose i.e. to answer the need for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes.
(3) The grant in Section 11 of the Decree of authority to the VRB to “solicit the direct assistance of other agencies & units of the government and deputize, for a fixed and limited period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the Board” is NOT a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion as to its execution, enforcement and implementation.
FACTS:
The petition assails the constitutionality of PD No 1987 entitled “An act creating the Videogram Regulatory Board” based on several grounds, including the following: (1) Section 10 of PD No 1987 which imposes a tax of 30% on the gross receipts payable to the local government is a rider and the same is not germane to the subject thereof; (2) the tax imposed is harsh, confiscatory, oppressive and/or in unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the due process of the Constitution; and (3) undue delegation of power and authority.
ISSUE:
Is PD 1987 constitutional?
RULING: Yes.
(1) The contention that the tax provision of the Decree is a rider is bereft and devoid of merit because the title of the Decree, which is the creation of the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) aimed at regulating and controlling the video industry, is comprehensive enough to include the purposes expressed in its preamble and reasonably covers all its provisions. Moreover, it is unnecessary to express all those objectives in the title or that the latter be an index to the body of the decree.
(2) It is axiomatic that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed. The legislature acts upon its constituents in imposing a tax; thus, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation is afforded the taxpayer. Also, the tax imposed by the Decree is a revenue measure. The tax of 30% is exacted for a public purpose i.e. to answer the need for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes.
(3) The grant in Section 11 of the Decree of authority to the VRB to “solicit the direct assistance of other agencies & units of the government and deputize, for a fixed and limited period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the Board” is NOT a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion as to its execution, enforcement and implementation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment