Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Decision, 26 July 2018, p. 22.
Second. Republic Act No. 9211 (“RA 9211”),
otherwise known as the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (“Tobacco
Regulation Act”) does not interpret, implement and sanction the
violation of Section 11 (1) of Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution.
xxx
2
SECTION 3. Purpose.—It is the main thrust of this Act to:
a. Promote a healthful environment;
b. Inform the public of the health risks associated with cigarette smoking and tobacco use;
c. Regulate and subsequently ban all tobacco advertisements and sponsorships;
d. Regulate the labeling of tobacco products;
e. Protect the youth from being initiated to cigarette smoking and tobacco use by prohibiting the sale of tobacco
products to minors;
f. Assist and encourage Filipino tobacco farmers to cultivate alternative agricultural crops to prevent economic
dislocation; and
g. Create an Inter-Agency Committee on Tobacco (IAC-Tobacco) to oversee the implementation of the provisions
of this Act.
Other than in Section 4 of RA 9211 on the definition used in
the Act, the term “Mass Media” is only found in Section 14 (a) and
Section 22 of RA 9211, which provides that:
Beginning 1 July 2007, all cinema and outdoor advertising shall be prohibited. No
leaflets, posters and similar outdoor advertising materials may be posted, except
inside the premises of point-of-sale retail establishments.
Beginning 1 July 2008, all forms of tobacco advertising in mass media shall be
prohibited except tobacco advertisements placed inside the premises of point-of-
sale retail establishments.
On the other hand, this Honorable Court found that the SWC Special
Panel issued Petitioners a Show Cause Order on August 1, 2017, which
reads as follows: 3
3
Decision, 26 July 2018, p. 6.
Nowhere in the above Show Cause Order state the Petitioner
are required to explain why they should not be held liable for
violating the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003. Therefore, contrary to
the law and fairness to apply the definition of “Mass Media” found in
the said Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 and to disregard the
definition of “Mass Media” found in PD 1018 in the case of the
Petitioner.
4
Decision, 26 July 2018, p. 22.
media, the definition referred to under Section 11 (1) of Article XVI
of the 1987 Constitution.
5
Further, in the case of Rappler, inc. v. Bautista, the
Supreme Court was not called upon to make a determination of
whether Rappler is covered by the Constitutional provision on the
mass media. The issue in that case involves whether, by virtue, not
of a provision of law, but a clause in the Memorandum of
Agreement between Rappler and the Constitution on Elections,
rappler should also be given equal opportunity to broadcast the
debates online even if it was not engaged in print or broadcast
media. Thus, this case actually bolsters Petitions’ position that
Rappler’s business is different the business of media entities
engaged on print or broadcast media.
5
G.R. No. 222702, 5 April 2016, 788 SCRA 442
could not have violated Section 11 (1) of Article XVI of the 1987
Constitution.