Philippine Tobacco Companies win Advertising Dispute

Source from:  tr.itsmyiq.com Feb 25, 2008 02/26/2008

The Marikina Regional Trial Court ruled that cigarette companies can place advertising materials within the premises of point-of-sale establishments. RTC Judge Alice Gutierrez's four-page ruling dated Feb. 14 upheld the interpretation of the majority of members of an inter-agency committee tasked to administer and implement the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, especially the outdoor advertising restriction that took effect on July 1, 2007. Sec. 22 of the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 states that "no leaflets, posters and similar materials may be posted, except inside the premises of point-of-sale retail establishments..." Majority of the members of the committee said advertising materials were permissible as long as they were disseminated within the premises of point-of-sale establishments. These include signages on top of sari-sari stores and other retail outlets. Representatives of the Department of Health and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance argued that any outdoor advertising materials might only be posted inside the interior walls of retail establishments. Fortune Tobacco Corp. petitioned the Marikina Regional Trial Court and sought for a declaratory relief on certain provisions of the Tobacco Regulation Act as well as its implementing rules and regulations to clarify the disputed provision. Fortune Tobacco said the wording of the law stipulated that the word "premises" must be given its common ordinary meaning. Judge Gutierrez said "the term 'premises' was clearly visible in the text of Sec. 1.18 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 as plain and unmistakable as the nose on a man's face." The section defines "premises" as a "track of land and the building and buildings thereon, including the open spaces between buildings located on the same track of land and within the perimeter of the said tract of land." "This Court," the judge said, "fails to see how a different interpretation could arise even if the plain meaning rules were disregarded and the law subjected to interpretation." She said "the interpretation of the law subscribed to by respondents is too restrictive." "It is an elementary rule that when the words and phrases of the statue are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be derived from the language employed and the statue must be taken to mean exactly what it says," said Gutierrez. "To go beyond the clear and ordinary import of the words in fact used and in this case within a clear and definite meaning imparted to them the very law making authority would be tantamount to transcending the words of the legislature. In effect, we would essentially be on unchartered waters," she said. Enditem