Tio vs Videogram
Facts:
On October 5, 1985, Presidential Decree No. 1987
entitled "An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board"
with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram
industry was promulgated and later took effect on April 10,
1986. Such decree was enacted because it did not only
greatly prejudiced the operations of moviehouses and
theaters, but also videogram(s) establishments collectively
earn around P600 Million per annum but such earnings have
not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the
Government of approximately P180 Million in taxes each
year.
Under Section 10 of PD No. 1987, the province shall
collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of the purchase price or
rental rate, as the case may be, for every sale, lease or
disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any
motion picture or audiovisual program.
Petitioners now contend that the decree is
unconstitutional because the tax imposed is harsh,
confiscatory, oppressive and/or in unlawful restraint of trade
in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution.
Issue: WON PD No. 1987 is unconstitutional because the tax
it imposes is an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the
due process clause
Ruling:
No, PD 1987 is constitutional and the tax it imposes is
not an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the due
process clause. According to the court, taxation has been
made to implement the state's police power. The tax
imposed by the Decree is not only a revenue measure to
collect taxes from the earnings of videogram establishments
which have not been subjected to tax, but also a regulatory
measure. The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It
was imposed primarily to answer the need for regulating the
video industry, particularly because of the rampant film
piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights,
and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. Therefore,
the decree is constitutional.
Assoc. Small Landowners vs Sec. Agrarian Reform
Facts:
On August 8, 1963, Congress of the Philippines
enacted R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural
Land Reform Code. This was substantially superseded by P.D.
No. 27 on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to
provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for
distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum
retention limits for landowners. On July 17, 1987, President
Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full land
ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27. This
was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation
No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform
program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229, providing the mechanics
for its implementation. When Congress of the Philippines
took over legislative power, it enacted R.A. No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988, which President Aquino signed on June 10, 1988.
A number of petitions were filed assailing the
constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and
R.A. No. 6657. They contend that said laws violate
separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the
constitutional limitation that no private property shall be
taken for public use without just compensation.
Issue: Whether or not there is a valid exercise of Police Power
or Power of Eminent domain in the case
Ruling:
YES. there is a valid exercise of power of eminent
domain in the case, by utilizing police power. The taking
contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land.
What is required is the surrender of the title to and the
physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-
beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of the police
power but of the power of eminent domain. Recent trends,
would indicate not a polarization but a mingling of the police
power and the power of eminent domain, with the latter
being used as an implement of the former like the power of
taxation.