TOLENTINO VS.

SECRETARY OF FINANCE
G.R. No. 115455
August 25, 1994
Article III, Sec 4 - No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
FACTS:
The case is composed of various suits for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA
7716 (E-VAT Law) which amended the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The law amended
Section 103 of the NIRC and removed the VAT exemptions for print media while maintaining those
granted to others. The law also included a provision which imposed a P1,000.00 annual VAT registration
fee.
Although a Revenue Regulation was issued by the Secretary of Finance exempting the circulation income
of print media, income from advertisements were still subject to the VAT. Petitioner, The Philippine
Press Institute (PPI), state that the withdrawal of exemptions is discriminatory and constitutes a violation
of their rights (press freedom).
Additionally, together with petitioner Philippine Bible Society (PBS), they are questioning the
registration provision of the law which requires the payment of an annual fee of P 1,000. They allege that
it lays a prior restraint on press freedom / imposes censorship.
ISSUE/S:
Does RA 7716 (E-VAT Law) violate Art. 3, Sec. 4 of the Constitution?
HELD:
No. RA 7716 (E-VAT Law) does not violate section 4.
a. The petitioners contend that the removal of the exemption of the press from VAT is
discriminatory towards print media and that the imposition of VAT on advertisements and
is an abridgement of press freedom.
The Court held that the press is not immune from general regulation from the state and the publisher
of a newspaper has to pay equitable and nondiscriminatory taxes on his business. Additionally, other
previously granted exemptions were also delisted to expand the tax base, thus there can be no
discrimination in the instant case.
What the law previously granted the press was a privilege; therefore the law could take back the
privilege anytime without offense to the Constitution.
Unless justified the differential treatment of the press creates risk of suppression of expression.
In this case, the law applies to a wide range of goods and services and there is a reasonable basis
for classification. The fact is that this limitation does not apply to the press alone but to all sales.
b. The petitioners allege that the registration provision is invalid as it lays a prior restraint to
press freedom.

Prepared by: Kristine Joyce Alegre

The Court held that the petitioners reliance on Murdock v. Pennsylvania was erroneous as what was
discussed there was a license fee applied to a religious sect which restrained the exercise of their
religion. In the present case, the fee is not imposed for the exercise of privilege but only for the
purpose of defraying part of the cost of registration. The registration fee is thus a mere
administrative fee, one not imposed on the exercise of a privilege, much less a constitutional
right.
**Petitions Dismissed.
Other issues raised by petitioners:
1. PAL, Roco, and CREBA alleged that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively from the House of
Representatives in violation of Art 6 Section 24 of the Constitution.
The Court ruled that the Senate may propose or concur with amendments and that the Senate may
propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure.
2. Petitioners: The Presidents certification was void.
The Court held that the phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment, etc." in Art. VI, Sec. 26 (2) qualifies not only the requirement that "printed
copies [of a bill] in its final form [must be] distributed to the members three days before its
passage" but also the requirement that before a bill can become a law it must have passed "three
readings on separate days."
3. The meeting of the Conference Committee for 2 days in executive session was a violation of the
constitutional policy of full public disclosure.
The Court held that the report submitted by the Committee served the purpose of informing the
public of the amendments.
4. The law violated the one title one subject rule etc

Prepared by: Kristine Joyce Alegre