GR No.

L-75697

June 18, 1987

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

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 FACTS: On September 1, 1986, Tio filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of PD No. 1987 entitled An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. On November 5, 1985, PD No. 1994 amended Sec. 134 of National Internal Revenue Code providing annual tax of P5.00 on video-tape cassettes. On October 23, 1986, the Greater Manila Theaters Association, Integrated Movie Producers, Importers and Distributors Association of the Philippines and Philippine Motion Pictures Producers Association were permitted by the court as INTERVENORS. Tio questions the decree on the following grounds: a) Sec 10, PD No. 1987 is a rider; b) 30% tax is harsh, confiscatory, oppressive and in restraint of trade; c) there is no factual or legal basis for the promulgation of the decree by the President under Amendment No. 6, 1973 Constitution; d) there is undue delegation of power and authority; e) the decree is an ex-post facto law; and f) there is over regulation of the video industry as if it were a nuisance, which it is not. ISSUE: Whether or not PD No. 1987 is constitutional? HELD: YES, PD No. 1987 is constitutional. Petitioners arguments were refuted. a) Sec. 10, PD No. 1987 is not a rider. It is allied and germane to the general object of the decree the regulation of the video industry through Videogram Regulatory Board. b) The levy of the 30% tax is valid since it was imposed to answer the need for regulating the video industry because of the film piracy, the flagrant violation of the intellectual property rights and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. c) The 8th whereas clause summarizes the justification in that grave emergencies necessitates bold emergency measures to be adopted with dispatch. d) Sec. 11, PD No. 1987 provides that the authority of the board to solicit such assistance is for a fixed and limited period with the deputized agencies concerned being subject to the discretion and control of the board. e) Sec. 15, PD No. 1987 is not violative of an ex-post facto law. There is no question that there is a rational connection between the fact proved (non-registration) and the ultimate fact presumed (violation of the decree). f) While the underlying objective of the decree is to protect the movie industry, there is no question that public welfare is at the bottom of its enactment.