Case Digest (G.R. No. L-75697)
Facts:
Valentin Tio doing business under the name and style of Omi Enterprises v. Videogram Regulatory Board, Minister of Finance, Metro Manila Commission, City Mayor and City Treasurer of Manila, G.R. No. 75697, June 18, 1987, Supreme Court En Banc, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Valentin Tio filed a petition with the Supreme Court on September 1, 1986, challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1987 (promulgated October 5, 1985; effective April 10, 1986) which created the Videogram Regulatory Board (the BOARD) and conferred broad regulatory powers over the videogram industry, including Section 10 imposing a 30% tax on sales, leases or dispositions of videograms. The petition sought relief on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other videogram operators allegedly adversely affected.
The petitioners’ attack identified multiple grounds: that Section 10’s tax was a non-germane rider to the decree’s title; that the 30% levy was confiscatory, oppressive and a restraint of trade; that there was no factual or legal basis for issuing the Decree under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution; that the Decree effected undue delegation of legislative power; that Section 15 operated as an ex post facto law by creating a prima facie presumption of violation; and that the Decree over-regulated the industry.
On November 5, 1985, Presidential Decree No. 1994 amended the National Internal Revenue Code to impose an annual tax of five pesos on each processed video-tape cassette. On October 23, 1986 the Court allowed intervention by the Greater Manila Theaters Association, Integrated Movie Producers, Importers and Distributors Association of the Philippines, and Philippine Motion Pictures Producers Association (collectively, the Intervenors), who filed a Comment in Intervention asserting the need to curb film piracy and protect the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1987, imposing a 30% tax on videogram transactions, a rider not germane to the Decree’s title?
- Does the 30% tax constitute a confiscatory, oppressive levy or an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of due process?
- Was there a sufficient factual or legal basis for promulgation of the Decree under Amendment No. 6 (emergency legislative powers) of the 1973 Constitution?
- Does Section 11’s authorization for the BOARD to solicit and deputize other agencies amount to an undue delegation of legislative power?
- Is Section 15’s 45-day registration period and the resulting prima facie presumption of violation an impermissible ex post facto law?
- Does the Decree impermi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)