Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    TIO Vs VIDEOGRAM

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    Valentino Tio filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 1987, which created the Videogram Regulatory Board and imposed annual taxes of 5% and 30% on gross receipts for videogram operators. Tio argued the tax imposition violated the One-Subject-One-Title rule as the title only referred to creating the regulatory board and not imposing taxes. The Supreme Court held that the tax provision was not inconsistent with the title and general subject of regulating and rationalizing the videogram industry, as taxation was a direct consequence and regulatory mechanism to achieve the decree's purpose. Therefore, the tax imposition did not violate the One-Subject-One-Title rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TIO Vs VIDEOGRAM

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    66 views1 page
    Valentino Tio filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 1987, which created the Videogram Regulatory Board and imposed annual taxes of 5% and 30% on gross receipts for videogram operators. Tio argued the tax imposition violated the One-Subject-One-Title rule as the title only referred to creating the regulatory board and not imposing taxes. The Supreme Court held that the tax provision was not inconsistent with the title and general subject of regulating and rationalizing the videogram industry, as taxation was a direct consequence and regulatory mechanism to achieve the decree's purpose. Therefore, the tax imposition did not violate the One-Subject-One-Title rule.

    Original Title

    TIO vs VIDEOGRAM

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Valentino Tio filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 1987, which created the Videogram Regulatory Board and imposed annual taxes of 5% and 30% on gross receipts for videogram operators. Tio argued the tax imposition violated the One-Subject-One-Title rule as the title only referred to creating the regulatory board and not imposing taxes. The Supreme Court held that the tax provision was not inconsistent with the title and general subject of regulating and rationalizing the videogram industry, as taxation was a direct consequence and regulatory mechanism to achieve the decree's purpose. Therefore, the tax imposition did not violate the One-Subject-One-Title rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    66 views1 page

    TIO Vs VIDEOGRAM

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    Valentino Tio filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 1987, which created the Videogram Regulatory Board and imposed annual taxes of 5% and 30% on gross receipts for videogram operators. Tio argued the tax imposition violated the One-Subject-One-Title rule as the title only referred to creating the regulatory board and not imposing taxes. The Supreme Court held that the tax provision was not inconsistent with the title and general subject of regulating and rationalizing the videogram industry, as taxation was a direct consequence and regulatory mechanism to achieve the decree's purpose. Therefore, the tax imposition did not violate the One-Subject-One-Title rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TITLE: VALENTIN TIO doing business under the name and style of OMI ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs.

    VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD, MINISTER OF FINANCE, METRO MANILA COMMISSION,


    CITY MAYOR and CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, respondents.
    G.R. NO. L-75697 DATE: June 18, 1987
    PONENTE: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J TOPIC: Sec. 26 - Requirements as to title of bills
    FACTS OF THE CASE:
    On September 1, 1986, Valentino Tio (Tio for brevity), on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of
    other videogram operators adversely affected filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of
    Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1987 entitled “An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board” with
    broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. Following its promulgation is the annual
    tax of 5% and 30% on gross receipts payable to the local government. The petitioner’s grounds is that
    the imposition of tax is a rider and is harsh and confiscatory, oppressive and/or unlawful restraint of
    trade. It is also alleged that the imposition of taxes is invalid since the title of the bill said only for the
    creation of the Videogram Regulatory Board, not for the imposition of taxes. This violates the One-
    Subject-One-Title Rule
    PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
    The case is a petition filed by petitioner on behalf of videogram operators adversely affected by
    Presidential Decree No. 1987
    STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not the imposition of taxes is invalid in the promulgation of PD No. 1987.
    HOLDING
    No. The constitutional requirement that “Every Bill shall be expressed in the title thereof” is sufficiently
    complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which statute seeks to
    achieve. It is not necessary that the title express each and every end that the stature wishes to
    accomplish. The requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the statutes are related and germane to the
    subject matter expressed in the title , or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign with the
    general subject and title. In the case at hand, the title may be read as only for the creation of the VRB,
    but the imposition of taxes is a direct consequence of the act, to perform its purpose to regulate and
    rationalize the heretofore uncontrolled distribution of videograms. The tax provision is not inconsistent
    with, nor foreign to that general subject and title. As a tool for regulation it is simply one of the regulatory
    and control mechanisms scattered throughout the decree.
    notes, if any:

    You might also like