Tio v Videogram Digest

Tio v Videogram

G.R. No. L-75697 June 18, 1987

Melencio-Herrera, J.:

Facts:

1.  Petitioner on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other videogram operators adversely affected assailed the constitutionality of PD 1987 entitled "An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. The Decree promulgated on October 5, 1985, took effect on April 10, 1986, fifteen (15) days after completion of its publication in the Official Gazette.

2.   PD 1994 issued a month thereafter reinforced PD 1987 and in effect amended the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Petitioner contended among others  that the tax provision of the decree is a rider. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the PD 1987 is unconstitutional due to the tax provision included

RULING: PD 1987 is constitutional.

1.  The title of the decree, which calls for the creation of the VRB is comprehensive enough to include the purposes expressed in its Preamble and reasonably covered in all its provisions. It is unnecessary to express all those objectives in the title or that the latter be an index to the body of the decree.

2. The foregoing provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the general object of the decree, which is the regulation of the video industry through the VRB as expressed in its title. The tax provision is not inconsistent with nor foreign to the general subject and title. As a tool for regulation  it is simply one of the regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the decree.

3.  The express purpose of PD 1987 to include taxation of the video industry in order to regulate and rationalize the heretofore uncontrolled distribution of videos is evident from Preambles 2 and 5. Those preambles explain the motives of the lawmaker in presenting the measure.