VALENTIN TIO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF OMI ENTERPRISES VS. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD, et al
G.R. No. 75697, June 18, 1987
Facts:
1. This petition was filed by petitioner on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other videogram operators adversely affected.
2. It assails the constitutionality of PD No. 1987 entitled "An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry.
3. Petitioner's attack on the constitutionality of the DECREE rests on the following grounds:
a. Section 10 thereof, 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 matter thereof;
b. The tax imposed is harsh, confiscatory, oppressive and/or in unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution;
c. There is no factual nor legal basis for the exercise by the President to the vast powers conferred upon him by Amendment No. 6;
d. There is undue delegation of power and authority;
e. The Decree is an ex-post facto law; and
f. There is over regulation of the video industry as if it were a nuisance, which it is not."
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
One Subject Matter:
The Constitutional requirement that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof" is sufficiently complied with if the title be comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which a statute seeks to achieve.
It is not necessary that the title express each and every end that the statute wishes to accomplish
An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general object".
The tax provision is not inconsistent with, nor foreign to that general subject and title. As a tool for regulation it is simply one of the regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the DECREE.
Tax imposition:
Petitioner also submits that the 30% tax imposed is harsh and oppressive, confiscatory, and in restraint of trade.
it is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed. The power to impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and so searching in extent, that the courts scarcely venture to declare that it is subject to any restrictions whatever, except such as rest in the discretion of the authority which exercises it.
In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.
The tax imposed by the DECREE is not only a regulatory but also a revenue measure prompted by the realization that earnings of videogram establishments of around P600 million per annum have not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of an additional source of revenue. It is an end-user tax, imposed on retailers for every videogram they make available for public viewing. It is similar to the 30% amusement tax imposed or borne by the movie industry which the theater-owners pay to the government, but which is passed on to the entire cost of the admission ticket, thus shifting the tax burden on the buying or the viewing public. It is a tax that is imposed uniformly on all videogram operators.
The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily 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. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to protect the movie industry, the tax remains a valid imposition.
"The public purpose of a tax may legally exist even if the motive which impelled the legislature to impose the tax was to favor one industry over another.
"It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that ‘inequities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation." Taxation has been made the implement of the state's police power.
At bottom, the rate of tax is a matter better addressed to the taxing legislature.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment