Title
British American Tobacco vs. Camacho
Case
G.R. No. 163583
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2008
A challenge to the constitutionality of excise tax classifications under RA 9334, upheld by the Supreme Court, ruling distinctions between "old" and "new" cigarette brands as valid and non-discriminatory.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 163583)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and challenged measures
    • Petitioner: British American Tobacco (BAT).
    • Respondents: Secretary of Finance (Camacho) and BIR Commissioner (Parayno).
    • Intervenors: Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Fortune Tobacco Corp., Mighty Corp., JT International, S.A.
    • Measures assailed:
      • Section 145 of the NIRC as recodified by RA 8424 and amended by RA 9334;
      • Revenue Regulations (RR) Nos. 1-97, 9-2003, 22-2003;
      • Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 6-2003.
  • Legislative framework
    • RA 8240 (Tax Reform Act of 1997), effective Jan 1, 1997:
      • Recodified NIRC Section 142→Section 145; four-tier specific excise tax on machine-packed cigarettes based on net retail price per pack as of October 1, 1996 (Annex D);
      • New brands taxed at “current” net retail price determined by 3-month survey; variant taxed at highest rate; classifications frozen until Congress revision.
    • RR 1-97 (Dec 1996): defined existing vs. new brands; set 3-month survey rule.
    • RR 9-2003 (Feb 2003) & RMO 6-2003 (Mar 2003): introduced periodic review every two years or earlier, directing BIR surveys and reclassification of new brands.
    • RR 22-2003 (Aug 2003): applied revised classifications including Lucky Strike.
  • Lucky Strike litigation
    • June 2001: BAT launched Lucky Strike brands at a suggested retail price (SRP) of ₱9.90 → initially taxed ₱8.96 per pack (second tier).
    • 2003 survey: current net retail prices ~₱21–₱23 → premium tier tax of ₱13.44.
    • BAT filed for TRO and preliminary injunction in RTC Makati (Civil Case No. 03-1032) challenging discrimination against new brands; TRO denied, preliminary injunction granted, then lifted.
    • RTC decision (May 12, 2004): upheld constitutionality of Section 145, RRs, and RMO; lifted injunction.
    • BAT elevated to SC on pure question of law.
  • RA 9334 (effective Jan 1, 2005)
    • Increased excise tax rates in all tiers; mandated new brands’ initial SRP classification, validated at 3 and 18 months; froze classification of brands introduced Jan 2, 1997–Dec 31, 2003, and maintained Annex D brands until Congress revision.
    • Impact: assessed BAT’s importation of 911,000 packs at ₱25.00 per pack (₱22,775,000).
  • Intervention and jurisdictional issues
    • Intervenors moved to protect their Annex D brands.
    • Respondent-Solicitor General raised CTA vs. RTC jurisdiction.

Issues:

  • Does Section 145 of the NIRC (as amended by RA 9334) and its implementing RRs/RMO violate the equal protection and uniformity clauses?
  • Did RR 1-97 (as amended by RR 9-2003), RR 22-2003, and RMO 6-2003 exceed BIR’s authority by allowing periodic reclassification of new brands?
  • Do the assailed provisions conflict with GATT Article III:2 on internal taxes?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.