1

REPLUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION MAKATI CITY, Branch ____

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 13(G) OF THE TOBACCO REGULATION ACT IN RELATION TO DOH ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2010-0013 AND THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL JUAN M. FLAVIER, EMERITO L. ROJAS, DANILO M. SEGISMUNDO, ROBERTO DE GALA ALVAREZ, EUGENIO TUNGCUL, JR., AMANCIO P. BENAS, MANUEL S. MOSQUEDA, EDMUNDO ROXAS, DARIO V. TALOSIG, MIGUEL JARDIN, PIO LAWAG, JOSE MANMANO, JUAN C. PERALTA, FRANCIS TIMBRE, FAUSTO RECIPROCO, JESSIE C. OCHOA, RODOLFO PALENZUELA, BERNARDO M. QUIJANO, SR., ROMEO A. BUENSUCESO, DAVID B. CAMPAÑANO, FRANCES MAE M. RICAFORT, ALVIN A. TRABACON, AQUILINO A. BALSAMO, ELLIMAR J. JUNTADO, EDGARDO T. CANDIDO, JAY-PEE F. CAMARA, DONALD Z. DATO-ON, ALVIN V. BUNDALIAN, SERGIO A. BALSAMO, ARIEL F. SAENZ, GEORGE A. VINOYA, STANLEY V. MORENO, AUGUST ALBERT V. MARTINEZ, PAUL LUCAS V. MARTINEZ, ROBERTO REYES, VIOLETA C. ROJAS, NEIL VILLACRUCIS, MIRNA R. CAMPAÑANO, EINSTEIN C. ROJAS, VIOLETA C. PERALTA, SARITA DUEÑAS, OFELIA NARCISO, ZENAIDA ARANCEÑA, LYDIA CHAN, DANILO DEL ROSARIO, MARILEN MENDOZA, HELEN GATDULA, RADI DECOLONGON, CECIL IBARRA, LETICIA ARENAS, ROXANNE DEL ROSARIO, ANNALIZA M. RANQUE, MYLA ABALGAR, EMILIE R. CASTAÑEDA, SHARLA RAMOS, MA. BELLA M. EDIAN, WILBERT ABALGAR, MARICAR ABALGAR, MARILYN M. LAVADER, VIRGILIO L. DOCOT, CLARA A. BOMBITA, LEAH

2

G. CABADSAN, CORAZON A. LAVADOR, LIBRADA K. ALTURA, ADELINO C. LAVADOR, ROSEMARIE B. DOLERA, VILMA R. MERILO, NANCY GAMBOA, ANGELYN T. FLORES, INOCENCIO V. TRAJE, ADELUISA H. MARANAN, ELVIRA V. TRAJE, GLORIA V. CASAPAO, MYLENE M. BENDAL, LALIN A. GLORIA, JOSE WARLITO G. ALTURA, MARIA YRA C. DOROTHEO, BRYAN JOSEPH C. DOROTHEO, JEREMY CHRIS C. DOROTHEO, and JEFFREY PAUL C. DOROTHEO, minors and represented by their parents, EDGARDO ULYSSES N. DOROTHEO AND ROSA LYNDA C. DOROTHEO, JOHN PHILIP V. DIANON, a minor represented by his guardian, AMELIA CRISTINA V. MARTINEZ, JOHN KENNETH A. PEÑAMANTE, a minor represented by his guardian, AMELITA A. SINAGUINON, JONEL O. OLATO, a minor represented by his guardian, CATALINA DELA CRUZ, KERON ORJALO, a minor represented by her parent, RICKY ORJALO, ELMER C. SABANAL JR., a minor represented by his parent, EMELITA C. SABANAL, ADRIAN LANCE K. AZUR, a minor represented by his guardian HILDO KO, KIMBERLY LAGUARDIA, a minor represented by her guardian ROSALINA MARRON, AZALEA BRENDA G. DE GUZMAN, a minor represented by her parent, BRENDA G. DE GUZMAN, TOBIEL FRANC M. GASPI, a minor represented by his mother MA. THERESA M. GASPI, ZANN PAOLO L. PACIFICADOR, ROMMEL D.C. GALINGAN, PAUL ANGELO D. OBMINA, MICHELLE A. DY, ANGELO M. MUÑIZ, SHIELANI AGNES B. DINGLE, JOYCE GRACE B. CASAS, MARIA THERESA M. DOMINGO, KEISHA TRINA M. GUANGKO, MIGUEL ANGELO T. BARRETTO, AHMED G. TILLAH, JOSE MANUEL S. SANTOS, DAVID DEL CASTILLO, JENIN ROSANNE H. VELASQUEZ, ANN MARGARET KEH LORENZO, KRISZANNE CERISSE P. CEÑIDOZA, AERON HALOS, JUSTIN BATOCABE, LEAH ZILPAH

3

CALDERON, STEPHANIE FAYE B. REYES, ALMYRRH KRISTA RAMIREZ, ARIANE MAE VALLADA, EVITA MARIZ M. RICAFORT, SHARLYN JOY L. WEE, JHOANA MARIE J. ZAMBRANO, YVONNE DANIELLE G. VIÑAS, JULIAN PAOLO R. PARAISO, KEILAH GAILE A. VILLANUEVA, ALVIN H. TENGONCIANG, MARY ROSE S. VILLALON, GLEN T. VENTANILLA, LESLEY ANNE G. TUBIO, KATRINA S. VERZOSA, CARLSBERG HOWARD C. TSANG, JANELLA M. TIU, VINCENT S. ROELALOS, JAMES A. RONDAL, ARMAND DELO A. TAN, JESSICA GRACE T. PREGO, AURORA AUREO M. REYES, ADRIAN M. PEREZ, SAHRA MAY O. PARAGAS, LIEZLYGAYLE F. LIMOS, GERALD CAESAR O. LIBRANDA, DENNIS C. MADARCOS, MARION D. LAGMAY, TRISTAN R. PAGARA, ABIGAIL S. MARALIT, NATHALYN T. QUAN, GLENNIS FIONA J. JAVELOSA, CO-NEIL R. RELATO, NIZHREEN T. MAPANDI, LEON T. CALMERIN, MANUEL L. OBLEA, ROWENA M. GUTIERREZ, LYVETTE D. SAN DIEGO, JULIUS A. YANO, VIKTOR SAMUEL C. FONTANILLA, LEO RAFAEL L. QUESADA, REGINA CAMILLE A. TRINIDAD, RANIA JOIE MARIE D. JOYA, GENEFLOR L. SANTIAGO, GINO PAOLO O. UY AND GUILIA FRANCESCA D. PINEDA.

Petitioners,

-versus- FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, PHILIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., PMFTC, INC., TELENGTAN BROTHERS & SONS, INC., DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, MIGHTY CORPORATION TOBACCO COMPANY, JT INTERNATIONAL (PHILIPPINES), AMERICAN TOBACCO (PHILS) LTD, ASSOCIATED ANGLO AMERICAN TOBACCO CORP, IMPERIAL TOBACCO CORPORATION, LA

4

CAMPANA FABRIA DE TABACOS, INC., TABAQUERIA DE FILIPINAS INC., CAPITAL TOBACCO CORP., STERLING TOBACCO CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE TOBACCO INSTITUTE and THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

Respondents.

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Petitioners respectfully state:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioners are citizens of the Philippines, either of legal age or minors

represented by their parents, as indicated in succeeding paragraphs.

1.1. Petitioners may be notified of pertinent processes through

the University of the Philippines Office of Legal Aid (UP OLA), at UP OLA,

Room 107, Ground Floor, Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines,

Diliman, Quezon City.

2. Respondents are the following:

2.1. Respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of

the Republic of the Philippines, and is engaged in the business of

manufacturing, selling, importing, exporting cigarettes such as, but not

limited to, Fortune, Hope, and Champion cigarettes. It may be served with

summons and other court processes at its principal business address at

Brgy. Fortune, Parang, Marikina City.

2.2. Respondent Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. a

domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of

the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, and is engaged in the cigarette

industry, including manufacturing, marketing and otherwise dealing in

cigarette products, including Marlboro, Philip Morris, L&M, Bowling Gold

5

and Miller. It may be served with summons and other court processes at

its principal business address at 27/F Tower 1, The Enterprise Center,

6766 Ayala Ave., cor. Paseo de Roxas, Makati City.

2.3. Respondent PMFTC Inc. is a domestic corporation duly

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of

the Philippines, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing,

processing, packing, buying, selling on wholesale, distributing, marketing

and otherwise dealing in cigarette products. It may be served with

summons and other court processes at its principal business address at

Lot 3, Phase 1B, First Philippine Industrial Park, Tanauan City, Batangas.

2.4. Respondent Telengtan Brothers & Sons, Inc. is a corporation

duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the

Philippines. It is doing business under the name and style of La Suerte

Cigar and Cigarette Factory and is engaged in the manufacture and

marketing of cigarettes and other tobacco products, such as Astro and

Memphis. It may be served with summons and other court processes at

its principal business address at Km. 14, South Super Highway,

Parañaque City.

2.5. Respondent Mighty Corporation Tobacco Company is a

domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of

the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, and is engaged in the business

of manufacturing, distributing and selling at wholesale/retail tobacco

products such as La Campana, Matamis Cortos B-29, and Break

cigarettes. It may be served with summons and other court processes at

its principal business address No. 55, McArthur Highway, Bo. Tikay,

Malolos City, Bulacan.

6

2.6. Respondent JT International (Philippines), Inc. is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of

the Republic of the Philippines. It is engaged in the business of

importation, manufacturing, distribution and marketing of tobacco

products, such as Mild Seven, Winston, Salem and Camel. It may be

served with summons and other court processes at its principal business

address at Unit 2704 & 2705, 27/F Discovery Centre, 25 ADB Avenue,

Ortigas Center, Pasig City.

2.7. Respondent British American Tobacco (Phils) Ltd is a

foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of England.

It is engaged in the business of importation of tobacco products such as

Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike, and Pall Mall. It may be served with summons

and other court processes at its principal business address at 22F

Citibank Tower, 8741 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City.

2.8. Respondent Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corp. is a

domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of

the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. It is engaged in the

manufacture of cigars and cigarettes and allied products. It may be served

with summons and other court processes at its principal business address

at 2655 Dimasalang Street, Pasay City.

2.9. Respondent Imperial Tobacco Corporation is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of

the Republic of the Philippines. It is engaged in the business of

manufacturing, distributing, selling, importing, exporting and otherwise

dealing in tobacco products such as Davidoff and West. It may be served

with summons and other court processes at its principal business address

at SMFG Compound, Legaspi cor. Eagle St. Barrio Ugong, Pasig City.

2.10. Respondent La Campana Fabrica de Tabacos, Inc. is a

domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of

the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. It is engaged in the business of

manufacturing and dealing in cigarettes, cigars and all kinds of cigarette

products. It may be served with summons and other court processes at its

7

principal business address at 9110 Sultana Street cor. Trabajo Street,

Makati City.

2.11. Respondent Tabaqueria de Filipinas Inc. is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of

the Republic of the Philippines. It is engaged in the business of

manufacturing, importing, exporting, buying, selling and retail of tobacco

products such as Flor de Filipinas, Independencia 1989 and Antonio

Gimenez. It may be served with summons and other court processes at

its principal business address at Edificio Belin, Magsaysay Rd., Brgy. San

Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna.

2.12. Respondent Capital Tobacco Corp. is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of

the Republic of the Philippines. It is engaged in the business of

manufacturing tobacco products such as Hi-class, Menthol, Bonus, and

Aurora. It may be served with summons and other court processes at its

principal business address at 11th St., 12th Ave., Grace Park, Caloocan

City.

2.13. Respondent Sterling Tobacco Corporation is a domestic

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of

the Republic of the Philippines. It is engaged in the business of

manufacturing, selling, importing, exporting tobacco products such as

Bowling Green and Stork. It may be served with summons and other court

processes at its principal business address at 3F, Vernida IV Bldg.,

Leviste Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City.

2.14. Respondent Philippine Tobacco Institute, Inc. is an

association of tobacco manufacturers and importers duly organized and

existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines.

It may be served with summons and other court processes at its principal

business address at Unit 508, Heritage Building, 1851 Dr. Antonio

Vazquez Street, Malate, Metro Manila.

8

2.15. Respondent Department of Health, the agency that is tasked

to implement and enforce the subject administrative issuance, is

impleaded herein as its rights and obligations would be affected by the

declaratory relief sought by Petitioners.

3. Considering that the instant Petition involves the construction and validity

of a statute and an administrative order, notice of this Petition is likewise given to the

Office of the Solicitor General in accordance with Section 3, Rule 63 of the Rules of

Court.1

ANTECEDENT FACTS

4. In 1992, Republic Act No. 7394 or the Consumer Act of the Philippines

(hereinafter referred to as ―Consumer Act‖) was enacted with the objective of (i)

protecting consumers against hazards to health and safety and deceptive, unfair and

unconscionable sales acts and practices and (ii) provision of information and education

to facilitate sound choice and the proper exercise of rights by the consumer. Article 94

of the Consumer Act required cigarette packages to bear the following statement or its

equivalent in Filipino in a conspicuous place:

"Warning" Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health"

5. In 2003, Republic Act No. 9211 Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003

(hereinafter referred to as ―Tobacco Regulation Act‖) was enacted, repealing Article 94

of the Consumer Act. A copy of the Tobacco Regulation Act and its Implementing Rules

and Regulations are attached hereto as Annexes A and B.

5.1. The Tobacco Regulation Act required the following textual

health warnings to be printed in English or in the vernacular on the bottom

portion of the front panel of every tobacco product package and to occupy

not less than thirty percent (30%) of such panel:

1 Section 3 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Notice on Solicitor General. — In any action which involves the validity of a statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified by the

party assailing the same and shall be entitled to be heard upon such question.

9

"GOVERNMENT WARNING; Cigarette are Addictive";

"GOVERNMENT WARNING; Tobacco Can harm your Children"; or

"GOVERNMENT WARNING; Smoking Kills."

5.2. In addition to these health warnings, the Tobacco Regulation

Act required all packages of tobacco products to contain the following

statement on one side panel, which statement should occupying an area

of not less than ten percent (10%):

"NO SALE TO MINORS" or "NOT FOR SALE TO MINORS."

5.3. Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act further requires

that no other printed warnings, except for the warnings and statement

contemplated by Section 13, shall be placed on cigarette packages, to wit:

g. No other printed warnings, except the health warning and the message required in this Section, paragraph F shall be placed on cigarette packages.

5.4 Section 32(c) of the Tobacco Regulation Act imposes the

penalties of fine and/or imprisonment for violation of Section 13 thereof:

c. Violation of Section 13 to 27 - On the first offense, 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 shall be imposed.

On the second offense, a fine of Two hundred thousand pesos (Php200,000.00) or imprisonment of not more than two (2) years, or both, at the discretion of the court shall be imposed.

On the third offense, in addition to a fine of not more than Four Hundred thousand pesos (Php400,000.00) or imprisonment of not more than three (3) years, or both at the discretion of the court, the business permits and licenses, in the case of a business entity or establishment shall be revoked or cancelled.

In the case of a business entity or establishment, the owner, president, manager or officials thereof shall be liable.

10

If the guilty officer is an alien, he shall summarily be deported after serving his sentence and shall be forever barred from re-entering from the Philippines

6. On 4 September 2005, more than three (3) years after the enactment of

the Tobacco Regulation Act, the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework

Convention on Tobacco Control (hereinafter referred to as the ―FCTC‖), a treaty that

aims to reduce the public health harms of tobacco use, entered into force in the country

after ratification by the Philippine Senate. A copy of the FCTC is attached hereto as

Annex C.

6.1. Article 11 of the FCTC mandates States parties to the

convention, within a period of three years after entry into force of this

Convention for that Party, to adopt and implement effective measures to

ensure that:

a. packages and labels of tobacco products do not use false,

misleading or deceptive means, including terms, descriptors, any

other sign that creates the false impression that a particular tobacco

product is less harmful than others such as ―low tar‖, ―light‖, ―ultra

light‖, or ―mild‖; and

b. tobacco product packets and packaging carry health

warnings describing the harmful effects of tobacco use or other

appropriate messages, which:

(i) shall be approved by the competent national authority,

(ii) shall be rotating,

(iii) shall be large, clear, visible and legible,

(iv) should be 50% or more of the principal display areas but

shall be no less than 30% of the principal display areas,

(v) may be in the form of or include pictures or pictograms. 2

2 Article 11 of the FCTC provides:

1. Each Party shall, within a period of three years after entry into force of this Convention for that Party, adopt and implement, in accordance with its national law, effective measures to ensure that:

(a) tobacco product packaging and labelling do not promote a tobacco product by

any means that are false, misleading, deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression about its characteristics, health effects, hazards or emissions, including any term, descriptor, trademark, figurative or any other sign that directly

11

7. Article 7 of the FCTC requires States Parties to adopt and implement

effective legislative, executive, administrative or other measures necessary to

implement its obligations under Article 11 and provides that the Conference of the

Parties shall propose appropriate guidelines for the implementation of these Articles, to

wit:

The Parties recognize that comprehensive non-price measures are an effective and important means of reducing tobacco consumption. Each Party shall adopt and implement effective legislative, executive, administrative or other measures necessary to implement its obligations pursuant to Articles 8 to 13 and shall cooperate, as appropriate, with each other directly or through competent international bodies with a view to their implementation. The Conference of the Parties shall propose appropriate guidelines for the implementation of the provisions of these Articles. [Emphasis supplied]

8. In November 2008, more than three (3) years after the FCTC was ratified,

the Conference of the Parties adopted Guidelines for Implementation of Article 11 of the

FCTC on ―Packaging and labeling of tobacco products‖ (the ―Guidelines‖) to assist

Parties in meeting their obligations under Article 11 of the Convention, and propose

measures that Parties can use to increase the effectiveness of their packaging and

or indirectly creates the false impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products. These may include terms such as ―low tar‖, ―light‖, ―ultra-light‖, or ―mild‖; and

(b) each unit packet and package of tobacco products and any outside packaging and labelling of such products also carry health warnings describing the harmful effects of tobacco use, and may include other appropriate messages. These warnings and messages:

(i) shall be approved by the competent national authority, (ii) shall be rotating, (iii) shall be large, clear, visible and legible, (iv) should be 50% or more of the principal display areas but shall be no less than 30% of the principal display areas, (v) may be in the form of or include pictures or pictograms.

2. Each unit packet and package of tobacco products and any outside packaging and labelling of such products shall, in addition to the warnings specified in paragraph 1(b) of this Article, contain information on relevant constituents and emissions of tobacco products as defined by national authorities. 3. Each Party shall require that the warnings and other textual information specified in paragraphs 1(b) and paragraph 2 of this Article will appear on each unit packet and package of tobacco products and any outside packaging and labelling of such products in its principal language or languages.

1. For the purposes of this Article, the term ―outside packaging and labelling‖ in relation to tobacco products applies to any packaging and labelling used in the retail sale of the product.

12

labeling measures in communicating health risks and reducing tobacco use. A copy of

the Guidelines is attached hereto as Annex D.

8.1. As elaborated in the Guidelines, evidence shows that health

warnings and messages that contain both pictures and text are far more

effective than those that are text-only, and have the added benefit of

reaching children and people with low-levels of literacy and those

who cannot read languages in which the text is written:

Larger picture warnings are also more likely to retain their effectiveness over time and are particularly effective in communicating health effects to low-literacy populations, children and young people. Other elements that enhance effectiveness include locating health warnings and messages on principal display areas, and at the top of these principal display areas; the use of colour rather than just black and white; requiring that multiple health warnings and messages appear concurrently; and periodic revision of health warnings and messages. 3

8.2. The Guidelines state that pictorial health warnings, when

compared with text-only ones, are:

a. more likely to be noticed;

b. rated more effective by tobacco users;

c. more likely to remain salient over time;

d. better communicate the health risks of tobacco use;

e. provoke more thought about the health risks of tobacco use and

about cessation;

f. increase motivation and intention to quit; and

g. associated with more attempts to quit.

9. In compliance with the obligations of the Philippines as State Party to the

FCTC and in accordance with the Guidelines Implementing Article 11 of the FCTC, On

25 May 2010, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the ―DOH‖), issued

Administrative Order 2010-0013 ―Requiring Graphic Health Information on Tobacco

Product Packages, Adopting Measures to Ensure that Tobacco Product Packaging and

Labeling Do Not Promote Tobacco By Any Means that are False, Misleading,

Deceptive Or Likely To Create An Erroneous Impression, And Matters Related Thereto‖

3 Guidelines Implementing Article 11 of the FCTC

13

(hereinafter referred to as ―AO 2010-0013‖). A copy of AO 2010-0013, including its

Annex, is attached hereto as Annex E.

9.1. The ―Rationale/Background‖ of AO 2010-0013 sets out the

foundation for the adoption of the policy: ―[e]vidence shows that health

information with pictures communicates health risks better

especially to children and young people as well as the illiterate, and

increase the motivation of tobacco users to quit and to decrease

their tobacco consumption.‖ As such, AO 2010-0013 requires that each

unit packet and package of tobacco products for sale, distribution or

importation within the country, shall bear large, clear, visible, and legible

full-color graphic health information.

10. As defined in AO 2010-0013, graphic health information refers to

statements and/or other information accompanied by related full-color pictures or

pictograms, which inform about the contents, substances, and health dangers of

tobacco products, to wit:

"Graphic Health Information" means statements, and/or other information, accompanied by related full-color pictures or pictograms, which inform about the contents and substances, in descriptive form, of tobacco products as well as inform against health dangers and other problems related to tobacco products, tobacco consumption, exposure to tobacco smoke, or other effects of tobacco use.

14

11. Annex 1 of AO 2010-0013 contains a template of nine (9) variations of

graphic health information as issued by the DOH:

15

12. Respondents Fortune Tobacco Corporation, PMFTC Inc., Telengtan

Brothers & Sons, Inc., Mighty Corporation Tobacco Company, and JT International

(Philippines), Inc. filed multiple suits in different Regional Trial Courts seeking to nullify

AO 2010-0013, which they allege to be null and void for, among others: (i) contravening

Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act, (ii) compliance with AO 2010-0013 would

expose Respondents to penalties under the Tobacco Regulation Act, and (iii) lack of

legal authority of the DOH to issue the regulation.

12.1. Respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation filed a Petition for

Declaratory Relief with Application for Issuance of TRO and/or Preliminary

Injunction against DOH before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina,

Branch 272, docketed as SCA Case No. 2010-796MK. An order granting

the application for a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the court

on July 1, 2010. The DOH filed an Omnibus Motion (i) to dismiss the

petition, (ii) for reconsideration of the July 1, 2010 Order, and (iii) to

dissolve the writ of injunction. The Omnibus Motion is still pending

resolution.

12.2. Respondent PMFTC Inc. filed a Petition for Prohibition with

Application for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction against DOH before the

Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6, docketed as SPCV

No. 10-065232.

12.3. Respondent Telengtan Brothers & Sons, Inc., doing

business under the name of La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory filed a

Petition for Declaratory Relief with Application for Preliminary Injunction

against DOH before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 196,

docketed as Civil Case No. 10-0227. On July 22, 2010, the Parañaque

RTC issued an Order denying the application for writ of preliminary

injunction. Telengtan Brothers & Sons, Inc. filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the foregoing Order, which Motion is still pending

resolution.

12.4. Respondent Mighty Corporation Tobacco Company filed a

Petition for Declaratory Relief with Application for Issuance of TRO and

Preliminary Injunction against DOH before the Regional Trial Court of

Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15, docketed as Civil Case No.393-M-2010. On

16

July 29, 2010, the Malolos RTC issued an Order granting the application

for writ of preliminary injunction.

12.5. Respondent JT International (Philippines), Inc. filed a

Petition for Nullification of AO 2010-0013 with Application for Issuance of

Permanent Injunction against DOH before the Regional Trial Court of

Pasig, docketed as Civil Case No. 72567.

NATURE OF THE PETITION

13. This Petition for Declaratory Relief is filed pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules

of Court and seeks a judicial determination of the construction of Section 13(g) of the

Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC, which construction

would affect the implementation of AO 2010-0013. The right to seek a declaratory

judgment is sanctioned by Section 1 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

SECTION 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. [Emphasis supplied]

14. Jurisprudence4 has laid down the following requirements for an action for

declaratory relief to be entertained:

a. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or

other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or

ordinance;

b. The terms of said documents or the validity thereof are doubtful and

require judicial construction;

c. There must have been no breach of the documents in question;

d. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds

of one between persons whose interests are adverse;

e. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and

f. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of

action or proceeding.

4 Jumamil v. CA, G.R. No. 144570, 21 September 2005.

17

15. An action for declaratory relief is warranted, as discussed below:

15.1. The subject matter of the issue for resolution involves a statute and

a government regulation, namely the Tobacco Regulation Act and AO 2010-

0013.

15.2. The validity of AO 2010-0013 has been questioned by

Respondents Fortune Tobacco Corp., PMFTC Inc, Telengtan Brothers & Sons,

Inc., Mighty Corporation Tobacco Company, JT International (Philippines), Inc. in

separate judicial actions to annul the said governmental regulation; thus, a

judicial determination of its validity is necessary.

15.3. There as yet has been no breach of AO 2010-0013 as it has

mandated compliance after the lapse of ninety (90) days from its effectivity date,

which is 10 June 2010. Thus, there can be no breach until 8 September 2010.

15.4. An actual justiciable controversy exists between the Petitioners,

who claim their Constitutional rights to life and health and the statutory right to

health information in seeking a judicial determination of the construction of

Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the

FCTC, and Respondents, upon which the obligations set out in AO 2010-0013

are imposed, and most of which seek to nullify AO 2010-0013 and have asked

for or obtained writs of injunction to prevent the DOH from implementing AO

2010-0013 on the ground that it violates Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation

Act.

15.5. The issue of the construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco

Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC is one that is ripe for

judicial determination. The assailed DOH issuance has an immediate and

substantial impact on the rights and interests of Petitioners and Respondents.

The need to settle this issue is apparent from the pending cases assailing the

legality of AO 2010-0013 and seeking to enjoin the implementation thereof.

15.6. Adequate relief through other means or other forms of action or

proceedings is not available, considering that the Regional Trial Court exercises

exclusive original jurisdiction over the judicial construction of provisions of law,

which is precisely the relief sought by Petitioners in this case. Respondents have

18

filed multiple and duplicitous suits in various jurisdictions to which Petitioners are

not party, thus the latter cannot be reasonably expected to be given adequate

relief if they would be forced to resort to piecemeal intervention in all cases filed

against AO 2010-0013.

16. Petitioners have paid the required docket and other lawful fees and the

deposit for the costs simultaneous with the filing of the petition as evidenced by Official

Receipts attached to this petition.

Legal Interest

17. Petitioners are citizens of the Philippines belonging to different sectors of

society, all seeking a judicial determination of the construction of Section 13(g) of the

Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC.

18. The DOH itself categorically recognizes the public’s interest in the

implementation and enforcement of AO 2010-0013 by devoting a provision on ―Public

Vigilance‖ to encourage the public to report violations of the administrative order, and

incorporating a mechanism for the public’s submission of reports of violations to the

Office of the Secretary at the national level and the Centers for Health Development at

the local level:

8. Public Vigilance. - The Department, monitoring teams, other

agencies, and stakeholders, shall encourage the public to report what they deem to be violations under this order.

9. Where to Report. - Reports of violations shall be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, or any other office/agency designated by the Secretary, at the national level, and to the CHDs at the local level. The concerned office/agency shall provide immediate feedback within five (5) working days on actions taken based on the received reports of alleged violations.

Former Senator and DOH Secretary Juan Flavier

19. Petitioner Juan Flavier, as an ordinary citizen, former Senator and

Secretary of Health, has personal and substantial legal interest to seek a judicial

determination of the Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the

FCTC, having authored Senate Bill No. 1859, which was eventually consolidated with

House Bill No. 5960 and enacted into law in 2003 with the passage of the Tobacco

19

Regulation Act. The law required the placement of textual health warnings on the

bottom of the front panel and a statement on one side panel of cigarette packs.

20. As early as 1993, Petitioner Flavier has pioneered administrative

measures to place health warnings on cigarette packs, having issued DOH

Administrative Order No. 10, series of 1993, which provided guidelines with respect to

the depiction of warning statements on cigarette packs pursuant to Article 94 of the

Consumer Act. Respondent Philippine Tobacco Institute filed a complaint for injunction

against Flavier, claiming that the administrative order was issued without or in excess of

his authority under the Consumer Act. The validity of the administrative order was

upheld with finality in 2001. In 2003, the Tobacco Regulation Act repealed

Administrative Order No. 10 and amended Article 94 of the Consumer Act.

Victims of Tobacco-related Diseases and Their Families

21. Petitioners Emerito L. Rojas, Danilo M. Segismundo, Roberto de Gala

Alvarez, Eugenio Tungcul, Jr., Amancio P. Benas, Manuel S. Mosqueda, Edmundo

Roxas, Dario V. Talosig, Miguel Jardin, Pio Lawag, Jose Manmano, Juan C. Peralta,

Francis Timbre, Fausto Reciproco, Jessie C. Ochoa, Rodolfo Palenzuela, Bernardo M.

Quijano, Sr., Romeo A. Buensuceso, David B. Campañano are individuals who have

suffered from laryngeal cancer. All but one have undergone laryngectomy – a procedure

for the removal of the larynx and separation of the airway from the mouth, nose, and

esophagus – leading to the loss of their voices. Laryngeal cancer is 99% caused by

smoking.

21.1. At the time these individuals began smoking, it was not

mandatory for tobacco products to carry health warnings on their packets.

The specific brands smoked by said individuals also did not carry any

health warnings. They received no health warnings when they began

smoking, and when they realized that smoking was hazardous to their

health, they could no longer quit.

22. Cancer patients and survivors have been found to still smoke after

diagnosis and treatment of cancer5 – a testament to the addictive nature of the smoking.

5 Burke, Lola et al. Smoking Behaviors Among Cancer Survivors: An Observational Clinical Study,

American Society of Oncology Practice Journal of Clinical Oncology. Available from: http://jop.ascopubs.org/content/5/1/6.abstract

20

Cancer survivors are at greater risk of cancer recurrence. The graphic health

information mandated by AO 2010-0013 would help deter these victims from continuing

or resuming their smoking addiction, whereas the ban on misleading descriptors would

protect them from marketing drives of tobacco companies aimed at deceiving them into

believing that a healthier option in cigarettes branded as ―light,‖ ―mild,‖ and other

similarly misleading terms is available.6 As such, these Petitioners have a direct and

material legal interest in the construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act

in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC insofar as the issuances address their right

to be protected from deceptive and/or inadequate information on cigarette packaging

and labelling as well as other forms of promotion that would lure them back to smoking.

The enforcement of AO 2010-0013 would help protect these Petitioners from resuming

tobacco consumption, which in the Petitioners’ case would definitely be a death

sentence.

23. Petitioners Violeta C. Rojas, Neil Villacrucis, Mirna R. Campañano,

Einstein C. Rojas, Violeta C. Peralta are family members of individuals with tobacco-

related illnesses, and who consequently suffer from serious physical, emotional and

financial burden caused medical expenses, in addition to the . Hence, they have direct

and personal interest in the construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act

in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC to protect their families’ right to health

information and prevent others from yielding to the same fate.

24. Petitioner Roberto Reyes is the brother of a deceased smoker, Vincent

Reyes, who died of lung cancer at the age of 47 in December 2004. Vincent Reyes was

enticed to smoke by the marketing of cigarettes at the tender age of fourteen (14) and

was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2000. A few months before his death, Vincent filed a

complaint for damages against respondent Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.,

which case has been mired in litigation up to the present. Vincent’s wife Helen Rose

and their children Paolo Christian and Miguel Christian have now substituted for him in

that case. Fr. Roberto Reyes personally witnessed how his brother embattled a

tobacco-related disease and eventually died as a result of false and deceptive

information about the harmful nature of tobacco products compounded by the devious

marketing practices of tobacco firms. He, along with the bereaved wife and children of

his brother, experienced physical, emotional and financial suffering due to the loss of a

close family member. As such, Fr. Robert Reyes has direct and personal interest in the

6 Ibid.

21

construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013

and the FCTC to protect his family’s and his own right to health information and thus

prevent others from succumbing to a fate similar to that of his late brother.

Smokers or Consumers of Tobacco Products

25. Petitioners Frances Mae M. Ricafort, Alvin A. Trabacon, Aquilino A.

Balsamo, Ellimar J. Juntado, Edgardo T. Candido, Jay-pee F. Camara, Donald Z. Dato-

on, Alvin V. Bundalian, Sergio A. Balsamo, Ariel F. Saenz, George A. Vinoya, Stanley V.

Moreno, August Albert V. Martinez, Paul Lucas V. Martinez are smokers or consumers

of tobacco products. The multiple cases filed by Respondents assailing the validity of

AO 2010-0013 and blocking its implementation hinder government efforts to protect the

people’s right to health and health information. Smokers are deprived of sufficient and

effective health warnings and messages that would otherwise allow them to make

informed and sound decisions significantly affecting their health.

26. Petitioners, as smokers exposed to the marketing drives of tobacco

companies, have a direct interest to ensure that government efforts directed at

safeguarding their right to health are implemented. The Constitution, Administrative

Code, Consumer Act and FCTC, among other laws and treaties adopted by the

Philippines, expressly acknowledge and protect this right. Clearly, every consumer has

a right to be protected from misinformation and misleading and deceitful practices that

lead to erroneous assumptions about hazards of tobacco products.

Families of smokers

27. Petitioners Sarita Dueñas, Ofelia Narciso, Zenaida Aranceña, Lydia Chan,

Danilo del Rosario, Marilen Mendoza, Helen Gatdula, Radi Decolongon, Cecil Ibarra,

Leticia Arenas, Roxanne del Rosario, Annaliza M. Ranque, Myla Abalgar, Emilie R.

Castañeda, Sharla Ramos, Ma. Bella M. Edian, Wilbert Abalgar, Maricar Abalgar,

Marilyn M. Lavader, Virgilio L. Docot, Clara A. Bombita, Leah G. Cabadsan, Corazon A.

Lavador, Librada K. Altura, Adelino C. Lavador, Rosemarie B. Dolera, Vilma R. Merilo,

Nancy Gamboa, Angelyn T. Flores, Inocencio V. Traje, Adeluisa H. Maranan, Elvira V.

Traje, Gloria V. Casapao, Mylene M. Bendal, Lalin A. Gloria and Jose Warlito G. Altura

are members of families of smokers. Family members of smokers take the heaviest toll

in tobacco consumption due to exposure to secondhand smoke, which has been found

to be as lethal as direct consumption. Petitioners have personal and material legal

22

interest in the judicial determination of the construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco

Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC, considering that their health

and well-being stand to suffer directly from the undeterred tobacco consumption of their

family members aggravated by lack of health information and misleading and deceptive

marketing practices of the tobacco industry.

27.1. The WHO acknowledges that ―[I]n adults, second-hand

smoke causes serious cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including

coronary heart disease and lung cancer. In infants, it causes sudden

death. In pregnant women, it causes low birth weight.‖7 Children living

with smokers are home are at greatest risk since ―[a]bout 40% of all

children are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke at home. 31% of

the deaths attributable to second-hand smoke occur in children.‖8

Exposure to smoking at home is also responsible for the growing number

of smokers since ―youths exposed to second-hand smoke at home are

one-and-a-half to two more times more likely to start smoking that those

not exposed.‖9

28. The burden that Petitioners suffer goes beyond health risks. Smoking

takes a financial toll on the family, especially for those who have family members suffer

from chronic illnesses related to tobacco, because of medical expenses and loss of

income caused by illnesses. It would not be amiss to state that the Civil Code places the

financial burden of support on family members, including expenses for medical

attendance.10 Smokers sufficiently informed of the hazards of smoking have a better

chance of quitting the habit and save their families from the financial and emotional

burden smoking causes. Hence, it is the right of family members to be protected from

the financial woes caused by smoking addiction, which is perpetuated by inadequate,

false, or misleading health information about tobacco products sought to be addressed

by AO 2010-0013.

7World Health Organization Fact Files, 10 Facts on Second-Hand Smoke. Available from:

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tobacco/en/index.html 8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical

attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. xxx Art. 105. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article: (1) The spouses; (2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants; (3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; (4) Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; and (5) Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.

23

Minors and their Parents

29. Petitioners Maria Yra C. Dorotheo, Bryan Joseph C. Dorotheo, Jeremy

Chris C. Dorotheo, Jeffrey Paul C. Dorotheo, John Philip V. Dianon, John Kenneth A.

Peñamante, Jonel O. Olato, Keron Orjalo, Elmer C. Sabanal Jr., Adrian Lance K Azur,

Kimberly Laguardia, Azalea Brenda G. de Guzman and Tobiel Franc M. Gaspi are

minors represented by their parents or guardians, Edgardo Ulysses N. Dorotheo, Rosa

Lynda C. Dorotheo, Amelia Cristina V. Martinez, Amelita A. Sinaguinon, Catalina dela

Cruz, Ricky Orjalo, Emelita C. Sabanal, Hilda Ko, Rosalina Marron, Brenda G. de

Guzman and Ma. Theresa M. Gaspi, who are likewise petitioners herein. Petitioners

who are minors, being the sector most vulnerable to the hazards of smoking and

secondhand smoke, have a direct and material legal interest in the case insofar as the

construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013

and the FCTC would affect the protection afforded to them by the governmental

regulation against increased tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke.

29.1. The right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest

attainable standard of health is enshrined in Article 24.1 of the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.11 The Convention further

sets forth the extensive rights to which all children are entitled without

distinction, such as:

a. the right to all the basic physical requirements of a healthy and

vigorous life,

b. the right to protection against hazards and other conditions or

circumstances prejudicial to his physical development, and

c. the right to live in a community and a society that can offer an

environment free from pernicious influences and conducive to the

promotion of health.12

11

The Philippines signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child on January 26, 1990 and ratified on 21 August 1990. Available from: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en 12

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides:

Article 3. Rights of the Child. - All children shall be entitled to the rights herein set forth without distinction as to legitimacy or illegitimacy, sex, social status, religion, political antecedents, and other factors.

(4) Every child has the right to a balanced diet, adequate clothing, sufficient shelter, proper medical attention, and all the basic physical requirements of a healthy and vigorous life.

xxx

24

30. Petitioners who are parents, on the other hand, have the responsibility to

ensure the best interest of their children, which definitely includes ensuring the health

and welfare of minor children. Parents have the clear legal right duty, as set out in the

Family Code to prevent their children from acquiring habits detrimental to their health,

and represent them in all matters affecting their interests.13 Health, welfare and

educational entities, in turn, have the responsibility, as set out in the Child and Youth

Welfare Code, to assist the parents in looking after the health of the child.14

Youth

31. Petitioners Zann Paolo L. Pacificador, Rommel D.C. Galingan, Paul

Angelo D. Obmina, Michelle A. Dy, Angelo M. Muñiz, Shielani Agnes B. Dingle, Joyce

Grace B. Casas, Maria Theresa M. Domingo, Keisha Trina M. Guangko, Miguel Angelo

T. Barretto, Ahmed G. Tillah, Jose Manuel S. Santos, David del Castillo, Jenin Rosanne

H. Velasquez, Ann Margaret Keh Lorenzo, Kriszanne Cerisse P. Ceñidoza, Aeron

Halos, Justin Batocabe, Leah Zilpah Calderon, Stephanie Faye B. Reyes, Almyrrh

Krista Ramirez, Ariane Mae Vallada, Evita Mariz M. Ricafort, Sharlyn Joy L. Wee,

(8) Every child has the right to protection against exploitation, improper influences, hazards, and other conditions or circumstances prejudicial to his physical, mental, emotional, social and moral development.

(9) Every child has the right to live in a community and a society that can offer him an environment free from pernicious influences and conducive to the promotion of his health and the cultivation of his desirable traits and attributes.

(10) Every child has the right to the care, assistance, and protection of the State, particularly when his parents or guardians fail or are unable to provide him with his fundamental needs for growth, development, and improvement.

13 The Family Code provides:

Article 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties:

(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means; x x x

(4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;

(5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;

14 P.D. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code provides:

Article 11. Promotion of Health. - The promotion of the Child's health shall begin with adequate pre-natal and post-natal care both for him and his mother. All appropriate measures shall be taken to insure his normal total development.

It shall be the responsibility of the health, welfare, and educational entities to assist the parents in looking after the health of the child.

25

Jhoana Marie J. Zambrano, Yvonne Danielle G. Viñas, Julian Paolo R. Paraiso, Keilah

Gaile A. Villanueva, Alvin H. Tengonciang, Mary Rose S. Villalon, Glen T. Ventanilla,

Lesley Anne G. Tubio, Katrina S. Verzosa, Carlsberg Howard C. Tsang, Janella M. Tiu,

Vincent S. Roelalos, James A. Rondal, Armand Delo A. Tan, Jessica Grace T. Prego,

Aurora Aureo M. Reyes, Adrian M. Perez, Sahra May O. Paragas, Liezly Gayle F.

Limos, Gerald Caesar O. Libranda, Dennis C. Madarcos, Marion D. Lagmay, Tristan R.

Pagara, Abigail S. Maralit, Nathalyn T. Quan, Glennis Fiona J. Javelosa, Co-Neil R.

Relato and Nizhreen T. Mapandi, are citizens of the Philippines between the ages of

eighteen (18) and thirty five (35) years. As members of the youth sector, which is most

susceptible to the lures of tobacco use,15 and the sector where use of health information

with pictures has shown to be more effective,16 they have an actual and direct interest in

the construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-

0013 and the FCTC.

32. Parties to the FCTC have expressed deep concern over the escalation in

smoking and other forms of tobacco consumption by children and adolescents

worldwide, particularly smoking at increasingly early ages.17 As a sector which is the

primary target of tobacco companies in their marketing campaigns18, and thus, having

been long bombarded by a deluge of advertisements at such an impressionable age,

the youth is in dire need of measures that could save them from unknowingly falling

prey to the profit-driven schemes of these companies. The 2007 Global Youth Tobacco

Survey of the WHO shows the rising prevalence of smoking among the youth in the

Philippines -- almost 40% increase in prevalence of smoking among school children 13

to 15 years old within the span of 4 years.

33. The Guidelines Implementing Article 11 of the FCTC provide that ―[l]arger

warnings with pictures have been shown to be particularly effective with children and

young people, as they are more likely to be noticed, better communicate health risks,

and provoke a greater emotional response.19 The construction of Section 13(g) of the

Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC will have a direct

impact on the right of the youth to be more sufficiently and effectively informed of the ills

of tobacco use before they fall into an addiction that could ultimately cost their lives.

15

Preamble of the FCTC (Annex C) 16

Showing the truth, saving lives: the case for pictorial health warnings. World Health Organization (2009) Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/resources/publications/wntd/2009/materials/brochure/en/index.html 17

Preamble of the FCTC (Annex C) 18

see WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS: A PRACTICAL MANUAL, 9-10, 13-14 (2005) 19

Guidelines Implementing Article 11 of the FCTC.

26

Other Citizens Interested in Protecting the Right to Life, the Right to Health and the Public Interest

34. Petitioners Leon T. Calmerin, Manuel L. Oblea, Rowena M. Gutierrez,

Lyvette D. San Diego, Julius A. Yano, Viktor Samuel C. Fontanilla, Leo Rafael L.

Quesada, Regina Camille A. Trinidad, Rania Joie Marie D. Joya, Geneflor L. Santiago,

Gino Paolo O. Uy, Guilia Francesca D. Pineda are concerned citizens who will

personally and substantially be affected by the judicial determination of the construction

of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the

FCTC, since this measure is the State’s compliance with its obligation to promote

and safeguard the right of its citizens to life and to health.

35. The Philippines is replete with laws establishing every Filipino’s right to

health and health information, providing for particular measures to guarantee said right.

Every person has the right to life, which is inextricably dependent on the right to health.

The Constitution recognizes this fundamental right of the people and affirms the

corollary duty of the State to protect and promote this particular right of every Filipino

citizen. Thus:

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

36. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to health is an

enforceable legal right, fundamental in character and inherent in every human being. In

fact, the Supreme Court has clearly held in a landmark case that the right to health

―unites‖ with the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with

the rhythm and harmony of nature, and that such right ―concerns nothing less than self-

preservation and self-perpetuation…the advancement of which may even be said to

predate all governments and constitutions….As a matter of fact, these basic rights need

not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception

of humankind.‖20

37. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognized

that the right to health is closely interdependent with the right to life and other human

rights:

20

Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.

27

The right to health is closely related to and dependent upon the realization of other human rights, as contained in the International Bill of Rights, including the rights to food, housing, work, education, human dignity, life, non-discrimination, equality, the prohibition against torture, privacy, access to information, and the freedoms of association, assembly and movement. These and other rights and freedoms address integral components of the right to health.21

38. Furthermore, the Petitioners have a right to know what will threaten their

right to life and to health, which right is well-settled to be superior to the mere right to

property that respondent tobacco companies invoke in defying public health regulations

such as AO 2010-0013. In the drafting of the Constitution, in fact, it was made clear that

in the hierarchy of rights, life and liberty are above property. As testified to by Fr.

Joaquin Bernas:

―In one same sweeping sentence, the Constitution has etched out the basic protection given to life, liberty and property. The impression is thus given that that the Constitution gives to property the same degree and quality of protection that it gives to life and liberty. [However], …Convention deliberations clearly recognized the social character of private property, emphatically enunciated in [1935] Article II, Section 6, [that] definitely placed property in a position inferior to life or liberty.”22 [Emphases supplied]

39. The primacy of the right to health is significantly illustrated in jurisprudence

promulgated in the United States as early as 1905. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts,23 the

United States Supreme Court upheld the validity of a public health regulation requiring

vaccination to protect the health of the community, as against the ―right to personal

liberty‖ being invoked by the plaintiff who refused to comply with the regulation. It further

recognized that it is the agency's role to choose from available regulatory alternatives,

and courts can only interfere where such regulations are so arbitrary and oppressive.

The Court emphasized that otherwise, the public authority would be ―practically

stripped‖ of its function to care for the public health and safety when endangered by

disease. Similarly, in the case at bar, the right to health of the Petitioners as protected

by the DOH through its administrative issuances should prevail over whatever rights the

respondent tobacco companies may allege to justify their defiance of valid and

reasonable public health regulations such as AO 2010-0013.

21

General Comment No. 14 (2000), par. 3. 22

Bernas, Joaquin G., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009), page 111.

28

40. The issues involved in the case undoubtedly have a direct effect upon the

State’s interest in and obligation of respecting, protecting, promoting, and fulfilling the

public’s inherent and constitutional right to life and to health. It involves matters of

public right and interest, where it is the people who are the real parties. It is the right

and duty of every citizen to thus interfere and vindicate such public right and interest.24

A Case of Transcendental Importance and Far-reaching Implications

41. Notwithstanding the clear legal interest of Petitioners in the above-

mentioned capacities, it is well-settled that when the proceeding involves the

assertion of a public right, the mere fact that one is a citizen satisfies the

requirement of personal interest.25 To reiterate, the issue of the construction of

Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC

involves the public right to life and to health, which subsumes the right to be protected

from hazards to health and safety, and the right to health information.

42. Furthermore, the rules on standing have oft been relaxed where the case

involves issues of transcendental importance or where it has far-reaching implications.

Thus, the Supreme Court, in a number of cases, has adopted a liberal policy, allowing

ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions

involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings.26 The Supreme

Court has held that cases of transcendental importance to the public must be settled

promptly and definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure, such as when

ordinary citizens and taxpayers are invoking only an indirect and general interest shared

in common with the public.27

23

197 U.S. 11 (1905) 24

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, et seq., 3 May 2006. 25

Franciso v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44, 133; Senate of the Philippines v. Eduardo Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 25, 2006. 26

See David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, et seq., 3 May 2006, 489 SCRA 160; Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, 24 April 1985, 136 SCRA 27 (1985); Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119, 29 May 1987, 150 SCRA 530 (1987); Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, L. No. 81311, 30 June 1988, 163 SCRA 371 (1988); Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551, 11 July 1989, 175 SCRA 264 (1989); Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989, 175 SCRA 343 (1989); Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No. 87636, 19 November 1990, 191 SCRA 452 (1990); Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., G.R. No. 88291, 31 May 1991, 197 SCRA 771 (1991); Osmeña v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 100318, 100308, 100417, 100420, 30 July 1991, 199 SCRA 750 (1991); De Guia v. Comelec, G.R. No. 104712, 6 May 1992, 208 SCRA 420 (1992); Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680, 138698, 10 October 2000, 342 SCRA 449 (2000); Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, 11 April 2002, 380 SCRA 739 (2002); Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002, 384 SCRA 152 (2002) (emphasis added). 27

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, 364-365 [1989].

29

43. Given the fundamental nature of the right involved in the instant case, it is

respectfully submitted that the Petitioners, representing Filipino citizens who are

smokers or consumers of tobacco products, their family members, victims of tobacco-

related diseases, minors and their parents, youth, and concerned citizens invoking their

constitutional right to health, be recognized as clothed with sufficient legal interest to

seek the judicial determination of the construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco

Regulation Act in relation to AO 2010-0013 and the FCTC.

ISSUE

44. The pivotal issue in this case is whether Section 13(g) of the Tobacco

Regulation Act precludes the DOH from issuing AO 2010-0013.

ARGUMENTS

45. Petitioner respectfully submits that Section 13(g) of the Tobacco

Regulation Act does not preclude the DOH from issuing AO 2010-0013 on the following

grounds:

I.

SECTION 13(G) OF THE TOBACCO REGULATION ACT DOES NOT CURTAIL THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF DOH TO ISSUE REGULATIONS PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND HEALTH INFORMATION THROUGH AO 2010-0013.

II.

THE REQUIREMENT OF GRAPHIC HEALTH INFORMATION UNDER AO 2010-0013 COMPLEMENTS SECTION 13(G) OF THE TOBACCO REGULATION ACT.

III.

THE DOH VALIDLY ISSUED AO 2010-0013 PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 7 AND 11 OF THE FCTC.

DISCUSSION

30

I. SECTION 13(G) OF THE TOBACCO REGULATION ACT DOES NOT CURTAIL THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF DOH TO ISSUE REGULATIONS PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND HEALTH INFORMATION THROUGH AO 2010-0013.

46. The DOH is authorized to promulgate AO 2010-0013. Pursuant to the

Constitutional state policy that the State shall protect and promote the right to health of

the people and instill health consciousness among them,28 the Administrative Code

gives DOH the authority and primary responsibility to formulate, plan, implement, and

coordinate policies and programs in the field of health.29

47. The DOH is undeniably the government authority that is competent to deal

with health information and consequently, the ―competent national authority‖ to approve

tobacco health warnings under the FCTC and its Guidelines. This authority to undertake

measures to protect public health through regulations relating to health information on

product packaging was likewise affirmed by the Supreme Court en banc in the case of

Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Phil. (PHAP) v. Health Secretary. 30

As early as the 1917 Revised Administrative Code of the Philippine Islands, health information was already within the ambit of the regulatory powers of the predecessor of DOH. Section 938 thereof charged it with the duty to protect the health of the people, and vested it with such powers as ―(g) the dissemination of hygienic information among the people and especially the inculcation of knowledge as to the proper care of infants and the methods of preventing and combating dangerous communicable diseases. Seventy years later, the 1987 Administrative Code tasked respondent DOH to carry out the state policy pronounced under Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, which is “to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.‖ To that end, the DOH was granted under Section 3 of the Administrative Code the power to ―(6) propagate health information and educate the population on important health, medical and environmental matters which have health implications.‖

48. The Tobacco Regulation Act does not and could not curtail the mandate of

the DOH under the Constitution and the Administrative Code to protect and promote the

right to health. The Tobacco Regulation Act does not prevent the DOH from exercising

28

Section 15, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution. 29

Title IX, Chapter I, Section 2 of the 1987 Administrative Code. 30

G.R. No. 173034, 09 October 2007.

31

the power to require other health information or prohibit misleading descriptors on

tobacco product packages. Any interpretation to the contrary would be ludicrous and

would have an effect of making Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act

unconstitutional for being overbroad and curtailing Constitutional mandates to promote

the right to health.

49. The contents of AO 2010-0013 requiring graphic health information and

prohibiting misleading descriptors on tobacco product packages is in compliance with

the State’s treaty obligation and thus passes the test of reasonableness. The DOH did

not add nor expand the scope of Article 11 of the FCTC in requiring graphic health

information through AO 2010-0013. In fact, the provisions of AO 2010-0013 are well

within and directly implement Article 11 of the FCTC as guided by the Implementing

Guidelines released by the WHO. AO 2010-0013 is germane to the objects and

purposes of the FCTC, and conforms to and is consistent with Article 11 of the FCTC,

and is thus reasonable and valid. In the words of the Supreme Court:

―The rules and regulations that administrative agencies promulgate, which are the product of a delegated legislative power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. They must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by an administrative body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it.‖ 31

50. Furthermore, the DOH retains jurisdiction under the Consumer Act to

issue additional labelling and packaging requirements to protect the consumers against

hazards to health and safety, deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and

practices, and facilitate sound choice and the proper exercise of consumer rights, as

enshrined under Article 3 thereof, notwithstanding the express amendment of Article 94

with respect to specific warnings for tobacco products.

51. Article 79 of the Consumer Act provides that if the Department

determines that regulations containing requirements are necessary to prevent the

deception of the consumer, it may issue additional labelling and packaging

31

Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart) vs. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), G.R. No. 151908, 12 August 2003; G.R. No. 152063, 12 August 2003.

32

requirements.32 The provision provides for instances when such regulations may be

released. However, it must be stressed that the purpose of the law is to consider the

best interest of the consumers in the interpretation and implementation of the Act,

including its implementing rules and regulations. Thus, Article 79 should not be

considered an exclusive enumeration of the regulations that the Department may issue.

II. THE REQUIREMENT OF GRAPHIC HEALTH INFORMATION UNDER AO 2010-0013 COMPLEMENTS SECTION 13(G) OF THE TOBACCO REGULATION ACT.

52. It is Respondents’ main contention that AO 2010-0013 contravenes the

Tobacco Regulation Act since Section 13(g) thereof mandates that ―No other printed

warnings, except the health warning and the message required in this Section [Section

13 of RA 9211], paragraph F, shall be placed on cigarette packages‖ and that any

compliance with AO 2010-0013 will put Respondents at risk of penalties under Section

32(c) of the Tobacco Regulation Act. At the outset, it is significant that the Implementing

Rules and Regulations of the Tobacco Regulation Act provide an exclusive enumeration

of punishable acts.33 The only punishable act with regard to the health warnings is:

32

The Consumer Act provides: Art. 79. Authority of the Concerned Department to Provide for Additional Labeling and Packaging Requirements. - Whenever the concerned department determines that regulations containing requirements other than those prescribed in Article 77 hereof are necessary to prevent the deception of the consumer or to facilitate value comparisons as to any consumer product, it may issue such rules and regulations to: (a) establish and define standards for characterization of the size of a package

enclosing any consumer product which may be used to supplement the label statement of net quality, of contents of packages containing such products but this clause shall not be construed as authorizing any limitation on the size, shape, weight, dimensions, or number of packages which may be used to enclose any product;

33 The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Tobacco Regulation Act provides:

Title VI – PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

Rule I – Penalties

Section 1. Punishable acts. – The following acts are punishable under the Act:

1.1. Smoking in designated public places where smoking is prohibited;

1.2. Non-compliance by the owners, proprietors, operators, possessors, managers or administrators of enclosed places open to the general public, public and private workplaces and other places not covered under Section 5 of the Act to establish smoking and non-smoking areas under Section 6 of the Act;

1.3. Sale or distribution of tobacco products by means of a vending machine or other self-service facility, unless the vending machine or similar contraption has a mechanism for age verification under Section 7 of the Act;

1.4. Non-compliance by the retailer to the requirements of Section 8 of the Act with respect to tobacco-related self-service displays or facilities, or to remove such non-compliant self-service displays or facilities;

33

―Non-compliance with the required health warnings on packages of tobacco

products intended for sale in the Philippines under Section 13 of the Act.” As

such, the implementing rules clearly show that the respondents’ claim that they will be

exposed to criminal sanctions under Section 13(g) if they comply with AO 2010-0013 is

erroneous. As to Respondents’ main contention that compliance with AO 2010-0013

exposes them to penalties under Section 32(c) of the Tobacco Regulation Act, this

argument proceeds from the erroneous premise that the State’s power to regulate to

tobacco regulation is confined only to the provisions of the Tobacco Regulation Act.

53. It is ridiculous to construe the requirement of placing graphic health

information on tobacco products under AO 2010-0013 as a contravention of the

prohibition under Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act. It is well to remember

that the state policy behind the law’s enactment and the thrust of the law includes: (1)

protection from the hazards of cigarette smoke and tobacco use, (2) informing the public

of the health risks associated with cigarette smoking and tobacco use, and (3) the

regulation of labelling of tobacco products to achieve these ends.

53.1 The state policy as espoused by the Tobacco Regulation Act

is the protection of the populace from hazardous products and the

regulation of the use, sale and advertisement of tobacco products in order

to promote a healthful environment and protect the citizens from the

hazards of tobacco smoke. The law provides:

Section 2. Policy - it is the policy of the State to protect the populace from hazardous products and promote the

1.5. Sale of tobacco products to or by a minor under Section 9 of the Act;

1.6. Sale of tobacco products within one hundred (100) meters from any point of the perimeter of a school, public playground or other facility frequented particularly by minors under Section 10 of the Act;

1.7. Non-compliance with the required signage in point-of-sale establishments under Section 11 of the Act;

1.8. Non-compliance with the required health warnings on packages of tobacco products intended for sale in the Philippines under Section 13 of the Act;

1.9. Non-compliance with the required health warning in all tobacco advertising in mass media under Section 14 of the Act;

1.10. Non-compliance with the restrictions on tobacco advertising, print media advertising, outdoor advertising; cinema advertising; television and radio advertising; advertising in audio, video and computer cassettes/discs and similar medium; and advertising in the Internet under Sections 15 to 21 of the Act;

1.11. Non-compliance with the ban on advertisements; restrictions on tobacco promotions; and ban on naming rights under Sections 22 to 24 of the Act;

1.12. Non-compliance with the restrictions on sponsorships and ban on sponsorships under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act; and

1.13. Distribution of samples of tobacco products to minors under Section 27 of the Act.

34

right to health and instill health consciousness among them. It is also the policy of the State, consistent with the Constitutional ideal to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the Interests of the workers and other stakeholders in the tobacco industry. For these purposes, the government shall institute a balanced policy whereby the use, sale, and advertisements of tobacco products shall be regulated in order to promote a healthful environment and protect the citizens from the hazards of tobacco smoke, and at the same time ensure that the interest of tobacco farmers, growers, workers and stakeholders are not adversely compromised. [Emphases supplied]

53.2 The express purpose of the Tobacco Regulation Act

further underscores that the rationale for requiring health warnings

on cigarette packs is precisely to (1) inform the public of health

risks associated with cigarette smoking and tobacco use and (2)

regulate the labelling of tobacco products. The law provides:

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;

xxx

d. Regulate the labeling of tobacco products; [Emphasis supplied]

54. An examination of the February 19, 2003 joint deliberations of the

Committee on Trade and Industry, Committee on Health and Committee on Public

Information of the House of Representatives on the bills that formed the basis of the

Tobacco Regulation Act readily reveals the intent behind the provision that is now

Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act: to keep a tight rein on tobacco product

manufacturers by totally prohibiting them from exercising discretion with respect

to the health warnings they can place on their products in possible circumvention of

the purpose of the law.

REP. BIAZON. The three (3) Warnings. And then, it was followed by the phrase ―or any other similar warning that the manufacturer may choose to place on the package.‖ I propose to delete the …

xxx REP. BIAZON. (Continuing) I propose to delete the phrase – “or any other similar warning that the manufacturer may chose (sic) to place on the package” so that we would standardize the health warnings.

xxx

35

REP. BlAZON. I would just like to reiterate my proposed amendment to delete line 2 and 3 of page 6 - " ... or any other similar warning that the manufacturer may choose to place ... " REP. VILLAR. Wala na iyon, oo. VOICES. Wala na. REP. BlAZON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.34 [Emphases supplied]

55. Furthermore, the requirements under the Tobacco Regulation Act and AO

2010-0013 are entirely separate and distinct, with marked differences as to content,

size, location, and scope. There is actually no inconsistency or conflict between the two

issuances -- they are complementary.

55.1 As to the content of textual health warnings versus graphic

health information: the Tobacco Regulation Act provides specific text-only

warnings that make a reference to the general health dangers of

cigarettes, tobacco and smoking:

"GOVERNMENT WARNING; Cigarettes are Addictive"; "GOVERNMENT WARNING; Tobacco Can harm your Children"; "GOVERNMENT WARNING; Smoking Kills."

55.2 AO 2010-0013, on the other hand, deals with graphic health

information, defined as ―statements, and/or other information

accompanied by related full-color pictures or pictograms which inform

about the contents and substances, in descriptive form, of tobacco

products as well as inform against health dangers and other problems

related to tobacco products, tobacco consumption, exposure to tobacco

smoke, or other effects of tobacco use.‖ It is clear, therefore, that health

dangers is only a component of the health information required under AO

2010-0013.

55.3 As to the size and location of the textual health warnings

versus graphic health information: the Tobacco Regulation Act only

requires warnings occupying no less than 30% of the bottom front

panel and an additional warning occupying no less than 10% of the side

panel on the prohibition of the sale of tobacco products to minors. AO

34

Joint deliberations of the Committee on Trade and Industry, Committee on Health and Committee on Public Information of the House of Representatives, February 19, 2003, pp. 33-36.

36

2010-0013, on the other hand, requires graphic health information to be

placed on the upper portions of each tobacco product or package

occupying no less than 30% of the front panel and 60% of the back

panel (or all corresponding panels of the unit packet or package if in

non-standard packaging) in a manner that ensures visibility.

55.4 As to the scope or coverage of the two issuances: the

Tobacco Regulation Act does not cover misleading descriptors and

constituent emissions. The prohibition in Article 13(g) only restricts the

form of the textual health warnings as contemplated in Section 13 of the

Act to ensure compliance by tobacco manufacturers and avoid

circumvention of the rule. The Tobacco Regulation Act does not prevent

the Department from exercising the power to require other information or

prohibit misleading descriptors on tobacco product packages.

56. There is no presumption of conflict between laws. It is dogmatic that laws

must be harmonized and reconciled and conflict must not be read into them. Even

where there is apparent conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of

the constitution or statute of the local state, the Supreme Court has ruled that efforts

should first be exerted to harmonize them.35

57. Assuming arguendo that an irreconcilable ―conflict‖ between Section

13(g) and AO 2010-0013 exists, statutory construction would dictate that the later law,

Article 11 of the FCTC (2005), must prevail over the older law, the Tobacco Regulation

Act (2003).

58. The principle of lex posterior derogat priori, is applicable. The Supreme

Court applied this principle in Marubeni vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.36 In that

case, the court applied the special rate of corporate income tax for non-resident

corporations rather than the higher rate provided by the Tax Code, pursuant to the Tax

Convention that the Philippines signed with Japan. In effect, the Tax Convention

altered the Tax Code by applying a lower tax in favor of Japanese corporations. In the

same vein, the Tobacco Regulation Act was enacted two (2) years before the FCTC

entered into force; hence the FCTC, as the later law, will prevail. In Secretary of

Justice vs. Lantion, the Supreme Court stated:

The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the

35

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 18 January 2000. 36

177 SCRA 500

37

principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect -- a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty.

59. Following the principle of lex posterior derogat priori, the FCTC, as

amplified by the Guidelines, should prevail over the Tobacco Regulation Act, being the

latter law. Thus, Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act has already been

amended. The government, by adhering to the FCTC, has agreed to implement the

provisions stated therein, including the additional measures imposed under Article 11 of

the treaty.

III. THE DOH VALIDLY ISSUED AO 2010-0013 PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 7 AND 11 OF THE FCTC AND THE GUIDELINES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 11. The FCTC has become part of the law of the land through transformation.

60. To reiterate, the FCTC entered into force in the country on 4 September

2005 and became part of the law of the land through transformation, pursuant to Article

VII, Sec. 21 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that ―No treaty or international

agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all

the Members of the Senate.‖ The Supreme Court has pronounced that the ratification by

the President and the concurrence of the Senate ―should be taken as a clear and

unequivocal expression of our nation's consent to be bound by said treaty, with the

concomitant duty to uphold the obligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder.‖37

61. Furthermore, in Guerrero Transport Services, Inc. vs. Blaylock

Transportation Services Employees Association – Kilusan,38 the Supreme Court

declared that a treaty has two (2) aspects – as an international agreement between

states, and as a municipal law for the people of each state to observe.

62. Dean Merlin Magallona, former Undersecretary of the Department of

Foreign Affairs and a renowned expert in international law, confirms the binding and

enforceable nature of the FCTC in his ―Statement on the Enforceability of WHO

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as Part of Philippine Law.‖ A copy of the

Statement is attached hereto as Annex F.

37

Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680 & 138698, 10 October 2000. 38

71 SCRA 621 [1976].

38

63. Dean Magallona states that no further action by Congress is required to

make a treaty, such as the FCTC, part of municipal law. The FCTC itself becomes

national law through transformation, to wit:

It is by Senate concurrence pursuant to this constitutional mandate that a treaty by the time it has become binding on the strength of its entry into force under its own provision that the WHO FCTC has been transformed as international law into national law. Nothing in the Treaty Clause requires the enactment of a congressional act as a pre-condition to becoming part of the law of the land. Under the Constitution, it is the treaty itself that becomes national law; by itself it is transformed into Philippine law, assuming that by its own provision it has already entered into force, as in the case of the WHO FCTC with respect to the Philippines as a Party to that treaty. Hence, under our constitutional system, treaties are self-executing; they become law without need of a legislative act to make it national law. [Emphasis supplied]

39

Articles 7 and 11 of the FCTC expressly sanctions the issuance of AO 2010-0013, an administrative measure of the competent national health authority.

64. The core obligation of the Philippines as a party to the FCTC is to adopt a

choice of administrative, executive, legislative or other measures that will effectively

implement its obligations pursuant to Articles 7 and 11 of the FCTC. Article 7 of the

FCTC provides:

The Parties recognize that comprehensive non-price measures are an effective and important means of reducing tobacco consumption. Each Party shall adopt and implement effective legislative, executive, administrative or other measures necessary to implement its obligations pursuant to Articles 8 to 13 and shall cooperate, as appropriate, with each other directly or through competent international bodies with a view to their implementation. The Conference of the Parties shall propose appropriate guidelines for the implementation of the provisions of these Articles.

65. Dean Magallona confirms that the Philippines adopted AO 2010-0013 in

compliance with Articles 7 and 11 of the FCTC, which have become part of Philippine

law through transformation.

As explained further below, the legislative or administrative measures that are required by the WHO FCTC in Article 7 is not for the purpose of making the WHO FCTC part of Philippine law; rather, its purpose is to implement this Convention together with the obligations it provides, when it has already become part of Philippine law. In the case at bar, the Administrative Order in question has been adopted in compliance with the obligations under Article 7, together with the other provision of the WHO FCTC, after they have been transformed into Philippine law by virtue of the Treaty Clause of the Constitution in Section 21, Article VII, following the Senate concurrence of this Convention

66. AO 2010-0013 expressly states that ―[t]hrough this Order, the Philippines,

through the Department, is taking a definitive step towards complying with its binding

international obligations under the FCTC‖ in observance of the principle of pacta sunt

servanda. The issuance of AO 2010-0013 is the manifestation of the Philippines’

exercise of its governmental powers as contemplated in Articles 7 and 11 of the FCTC,

through the adoption of an administrative measure to carry out its obligations

thereunder, in conjunction with the DOH’s mandate under the Consumer Act and the

Administrative Code.

40

67. In light of all of the above, a declaratory judgment from the Honorable

Court is sought to shed light on Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act, in relation

to AO 2010-0013, the FCTC and its Guidelines.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray that the Honorable Court make a

judicial determination of the construction of Section 13(g) of the Tobacco Regulation Act

in relation to DOH Administrative Order No. 2010-0013 and the Framework Convention

on Tobacco Control and its Guidelines.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City, 7 September 2010.

41

Copy furnished: THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL Amorsolo Street, Makati City

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Petition was served through registered mail rather than the preferred mode of personal service due to distance, lack of time, and lack of sufficient messengerial services.

PAUL ANGELO D. OBMINA