Thursday, February 23, 2012

Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board

Facts: This petition assails the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1987 entitled “An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board” with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. 

Petitioner’s attack on the constitutionality of the DECREE rests on the ground among others that 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. 

Issue: Is Sec 10 of PD No 1987 a RIDER? 

Held: NO. The requirement that every bill must only have one subject expressed in the title is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to include subjects related to the general purpose which the statute seeks to achieve. Such is the case here. Taxation is sufficiently related to the regulation of the video industry. 

The provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonable necessary for the accomplishment of, the general object of the DECREE, which is the regulation of the video industry through the Videogram Regulatory Board as expressed in its title. 

The Supreme Court thus provided the following standards whether or not a provision is embraced in the title: 

(1) Title be comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which a statute seeks to achieve. 

(2) If all parts of the statute are related and germane to the subject matter expressed in the title. 

(3) So long as they are not inconsistent or foreign to the general subject to the title. 

(4) Regardless of how diverse it is so long as it maybe considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general object. 

(5) Should not be construed as to cripple legislative power. 

(6) Given PRACTICAL rather that a technical construction. 


Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board"

Post a Comment