|
|
|
|
To : DIRECTOR VICTORIO
MARIO A. DIMAGIBA Section 13c of the said act states that:
Beginning 1 July 2006, the health warning shall be on the bottom portion of one (1) front panel of every tobacco product package and occupy not less than thirty percent (30%) of such panel including any border or frame….. The "Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9211" that was approved by this committee reiterates the mandatory characteristic of this provision, Title IV, Rule 1, Section 3 of the said rules states:
The foregoing provisions
must be strictly enforced in order to serve the purposes stated in Section
3 of RA9211, to wit:
The undertaking signed by tobacco manufacturers and importers on June 1, 2006 cited that the reason for their inability to comply with the Section 13( c) of RA9211 is due to the issuance of by the BIR of RMC 26-2006 last 20 April 2006 which refers to a clarification of the packaging guidelines under Revenue Regulation-3 as of January 5, 2006. Clearly, RA 9211 is a law that mandates specific packaging design whereas Revenue Regulation-3 is merely a regulation "prescribing the implementing guidelines on the revised rates of tax." It is elementary that the mandatory provisions of a law regulating the labeling of tobacco products cannot be amended by packaging guidelines proposed in a revenue regulation. There is no reason why the afore-mentioned companies should wait for a clarification on the foregoing when the pertinent law is clear. Having done so, the tobacco manufacturers and importers have operated under the risk of the penalty provided by law for the first offense which is a fine of not more than one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or imprisonment of not more than one (1) year, or both, at the discretion of the court (RA9211: Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, Section 32( c)). The same undertaking also recommends that the reckoning point for monitoring compliance of the new health warning be upon withdrawal from the factory or upon clearance from customs custody. This issue is the subject of Philippine Tobacco Institute, Inc.'s (PTI) request for reconsideration from the clarification provided by the IAC Tobacco Secretariat to British American Tobacco (BAT), a PTI member, in a letter dated November 24, 2005, which states that:
The clarificatory
letter further explains that:
The preceding clarification provided by the IAC Tobacco Secretariat reflects the true intent of RA 9211 which is, among others, to ensure that through the regulated labeling of tobacco products, the public would be properly and fully informed of the health risks associated with cigarette smoking and tobacco use beginning 01 July 2006. Considering that RA 9211 was passed in June 2003, the tobacco manufacturers and importers or the members of PTI had three (3) years in which to prepare and ensure compliance with the law. The said companies could have avoided what they claim to be a logistical problem of having to withdraw their stocks from the trade and other costs pertinent thereto had they committed to complying with mandatory provisions of the law from the start and taken the appropriate precautionary measures. The failure of the said companies' part to take such actions should not be permitted to effectively challenge the intentions of RA 9211 or of the policy of the State to protect the populace from hazardous products, promote the right to health, and instill health consciousness. In light of the foregoing, we would like to remind you that this committee cannot, within the powers granted to it by law, approve the request of the tobacco manufacturers and importers for extension to comply with the health warning design prescribed in Section 13(c) of RA 9211. Neither can the committee interpret the law to mean that the reckoning point for monitoring compliance of the new health warning be upon withdrawal from the factory or from clearance from customs custody for this would be contrary to the letter and intent of RA 9211. For FCAP,
|
