e - Tobacco Control Laws

Republic of the ~hilip~ines

~ourt of ~peals Manila

.1: ' ,,

~ ' ' i

~pedal ;Jftfteentb (151n iJ.Btut~ton ; !

'I [:

PHILIPiPINE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC.,

' Petitioner-Appellee,

-versus-

THE CITY OF BALANGA, THE CITY MAYOR OF BALANGA, THE CITY COUNCIL OF BALANGA, AND THE LICENSING, PERMIT AND FRANCHISING OFFICE CITY OF BALANGA,

Respondents-Appellants, X------------------- X

; i I

CA~G.~. SP Nq. 159329 I '

Members!

LANTION, J.A.C., Chairperson 'ROBENIOL, G. T., and "ROXAS, RRG.,JJ.

Promulgated:

JUL 22 Z019 -e::z=:;. '·~

DECISION

LANTION, J.A.C., J.:

Before Us is an Appeal1 from the Decision dated 05 July 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, Balanga City, Bataan (court a quo) in Civil Case No. 10699.

· As per Office Order No. 298-19-RFB dated OS July 2019, designating Associate Justice Gabriel T. Rq>beniol as Acting Members of the Special Fifteenth Division. ''As per Office Order No. 302-19-RFB dated 10 July 2019, designating Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo GJ Roxas as Acting Members of the Special Fifteenth Division. , Rollo, Notice of Appeal dated 04 December 2018, pp. 33 to 39; "Respondents hereby give notice that thley are appealing to the Honorable Court of Appeals the Decision dated 5 July 2018 and the Order dated 15 November 2018 denying the Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification, both issued by the Honorable Court for being contrary to facts and evidence presented, law and jurisprudence. "

CA-G.R.SP No. 159329 Decision

THE ANTECEDENTS

of 13

Petitioner-Appellee Philippine Tobacco Institute, Inc. (PetitionerAppellee) is a corporation duly organized under Philippine laws composed of the following stakeholders as members, to wit: a) Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation; b) Filharvest Manufacturing, Inc.; c) Fortune Tobacco Corporation; d) GB Global Exprez, Inc.; e) GB-BEM Cigarette Company, Inc.; f) La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory; g) JTI Philippines, Inc.; h) JTI Asia Manufacturing Corp.; i) Mighty Corporation; j) Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.; and k) PMFTC Inc.

The Respondent-Appellant City Council of Balanga (collectively with the City of Balanga, the City Mayor of Balanga, and the Licensing, Permit and Franchising Office-City of Balanga are hereto known as the RespondentsAppellants) passed Ordinance No. 09 Series of 2016 on 22 March 20162

ORDINANCE NO. 09 SERIES OF 2016

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 20 SERIES OF 2010, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE NO SMOKING ORDINANCE OF BALANGA CITY, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 04 S. 2013, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE HEALTH OF THE BALANGUENOS, THEIR FAMILIES AGAINST THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS AND ADVERTISEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Balanga City in Session assembled

Section 1. Section 5 of Ordinance No_ 20 Series of 2010, as amended by Ordinance No. 04 series of 2013 is hereby amended to read as follows·

"SECTION 5. PROHIBITED ACTS- The following acts are declared unlawful and prohibited by this Ordinance:

8. XXX

b. Selling or distributing tobacco products in a school, public playground or other facilities frequented by minors within 100 meters from any point in the perimeter of these places.

For purposes of this ordinance, facilities frequented by minors include: churches and any other place of worship, barangay hall covered courts, student dormitories, cemeteries (Memorial Parks), resorts with recreational area like swimming pools, hospitals and markets.

C. XXX

XXX

h. Selling and distributing tobacco products (and Electronic Nicotine Delivery System or ENDS) in all government premises;

L Selling and distributing tobacco products (and ENDS) per piece or in tobacco products packages that contain less than 20 pieces.

j. Selling and distributing of tobacco products (and ENDS) removed from its original individually sealed tobacco product package.

k. Selling and distributing of tobacco products (and ENOS) through ambulant or street vendors. including other mobile/ non-fixed vending stalls. kiosks. station or units.

I. Placing, posting, distributing, announcing, publishing, broadcasting or conducting any form of direct or indirect tobacco (and ENDS) advertisement and/ or promotion. including those situated in outdoor and indoor premises of tobacco {and ENDS) point-of-sale establishments.

The City Government of Balanga hereby implements the total ban on Tobacco Advertisement Promotion and Sponsorship (TAPS) even inside the Point of Sale


of 13

(the challenged Ordinance) which amended several portions of an earlier passed Comprehensive No Smoking Ordinance of Balanga City (Ordinance No. 20 Series of 2010).

Pursuant to the challenged Ordinance, the RespondentsAppellants implemented the same by refusing to issue the necessary permits and licenses to the Petitioner-Appellee's members. As a result, the Petitioner-Appellee's members were unable to sell tobacco

establishments and mandate every establishment to adopt the same.

m. Point-of-sale display of tobacco products (and ENOS) and their packaging outside of opaque gray or white-colored storages or containments, and without approval/ permit by the City Health Office. Tobacco brands and variants available for sale at the transaction counter shall appear only in the containments and storage in plain serif fonts and devoid of recognizable product or brand typeface, insignia or markings.

n. Facilitating or participating of any government official or personnel of the City of Balanga regardless of employment status (permanent, casual, contractual, job order, consultant or special appointment), in any form of contribution or sponsorship to an event, activity, program or project, individual, or group, within the territorial jurisdiction, with the aim, effect or likely effects of promoting a tobacco product and/ or ENDS, its use either directly or indirectly.

Penalty prescribed herein paragraph "n" of this section is without prejudice to the rules and sanctions prescribed by RA 3019, RA 6713, Revised Penal Code (1932), and CSC-DOH Joint Memo Circular 201 0-01."

o. Ordering, instructing or compelling a minor to buy tobacco products and/ or ENDS. Selling, distribution, advertisement and promotions of sweets, snacks, toys or other items to minors that is in in the form of tobacco products or bears resemblance to any tobacco product brand name, logo, indicia or packaging which may appeal to minors is also prohibited.

p. Selling. distribution. using. advertising and promotions of tobacco products and/ or ENDS within the declared University Town area of the City and within three l3l kilometers radius thereof per City Ordinance No. 21 S. 2008. This include total ban on Designated Smoking Area fDSAl in any establishments within the U-Town Area and three C3l kilometers from the radius thereof. without prejudice to existing ban on the perimeters of schools. playgrounds and other facility frequented by minors (emphasis supplied).

Section 2. Section 8 of Ordinance no. 20 Series of 2010. as amended by Ordinance No. 04 series of 2013 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 8. PENALTIES. -The following penalties shall be imposed on violators of this Ordinance

a. Violation of Section 5 (a), (h). (i). 01. (k). (1). (m), (n). (o). (p), and Section 6

i. First Offense: P 1000.00 ii. Second Offense: P1.500.00 iii. Third and Subsequent Offenses: 3,000.00

or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or both at the discretion of the court and cancellation or revocation of business license or permit (in case of a business entity or establishment).

b. Violation of Section 5 (b), (c). (d). and Section 6

i. First Offense: P2.000.00 ii. Second Offense:P3,500.00 iii. Third and Subsequent Offenses P5,000.00

or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or both at the discretion of the court and cancellation or revocation of business license or permit {in case of a business entity or establishment).

c. Violation of Section 5 (e). (f), {g), and Section 6

First Offense:P2.500.00 . Second Offense: P3,500.00 i. Third and Subsequent Offenses; P5,000.00

CA-G.R. SP No. 159329 Decision

of 13

products within the University Town and within a three (3) kilometer radius from it.

Not in conformity with the Respondents-Appellants actions, the Petitioner-Appellee filed a Petition for Prohibition with Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/ or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 93 (court a quo) which was docketed as Civil Case No. 10699.

In an Order dated 18 August 2017, the court a quo denied the application for Temporary Restraining Order. Similarly, the application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was also denied through a Consolidated Resolution' dated 20 September 2017.

or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or both at the discretion of the court and cancellation or revocation of business license or permit (in case of a business entity establishment).

Persons-in·charge who found to have allowed, abetted, or tolerated the same in accordance with SectionS of lh1s Ordinance, and food establishments, which are exclusively catering in food business, which are not allowed to sell cigarettes, tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and other tobacco products, but still violated said section 5 shall be meted with the following penalty:

i. First Offense: One Day Closure of Business ii. Second Offense: Two Days Closure of Business iii. Third and Subsequent Offenses: A year Closure of Business

In all cases f failure to pay the fine, the offender shall be given at least three days notice to comply with the penalty, otherwise, imprisonment for a period not exceeding six (6) months shall be meted against the violator.

If the offender is a minor, said minor and his/ her parents must undergo a briefing/ seminar in the City Social Welfare Office the topic of which regards smoking and second hand smokes

All fines collected shall be used for anti smoking programs and campaign of the City. A portion of the penalties collected should be used for Advocacy Activities of Tobacco Control Program.

Section 3. Quarterly Submission of Reports. - For purposes of consolidated report, record and update to be presented to the Local Chief Executive, it is hereby mandated for all City Government Departments in the City of Balanga to summit quarterly reports related to Tobacco Control Program to the City Health Office.

Section 4. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, may portion of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the other provisions not affected thereby.

Section 5. Repealing Clause. - All ordinances, resolutions, executive orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed or modified accordingly

Section 6. Effectivity. In addition, to the publication requirement of the 1991 Local Government Code of the Philippines, this ordinance shall take effect after ten (10) days from the date a copy thereof is posted in a bulletin board at the entrance of the City hall, and in at least two (2) other conspicuous places in the City of Balanga.

Enacted and approved this 22nd day of March, 2016, in the City of Balanga, Bataan.

3 Respondents-Appellants filed a Motion to Dismiss on 21 August 2017. As of that time, the application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was still unresolved. Hence, the court a quo deemed it proper to rule on both Motion to Dismiss and Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction in one Consolidated Resolution.


of 13

During Pre-trial, the Petitioner-Appellee and RespondentsAppellants stipulated on the following, to wit: a) RespondentAppellant City Council enacted the challenged Ordinance; b) Respondents-Appellants are currently implementing the challenged ordinance; c) Respondents-Appellants refused to issue the necessary permits and licenses to the Petitioner-Appellee's members; d) Respondents-Appellants required the tobacco companies' representatives to sign an undertaking before they could issue a mayor's permit; and e) there was no mayor's permit issued for the sale, distribution and promotion of tobacco products in the City of Balanga in 2017.

After conducting trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a Decision on 05 July 2018 (assailed Decision) granting the PetitionerAppellee's Petition for Prohibition. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is GRANTED. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 09, series of 2016 (which amends Section 5 (p) of Ordinance no. 20, Series of 201 0) of the City of Balanga is hereby DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID. The respondents City of Balanga, the City Mayor of Balanga, the City Council of Balanga and the Licensing, Permit and Franchising Office -City of Balanga and all persons or entities acting in their behalf or under their authority are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing and implementing Section 1 of Ordinance No. 09 series of 2016 (which amends Section 5 (p) of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010) of the City of Balanga.

No costs.

SO ORDERED4.

The Respondents-Appellants sought reconsideration (filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification on 25 July 2018 5

) of the the assailed Decision but the same was denied through an Order dated 15 November 20186 issued by the court a quo.

Aggrieved, the Respondents-Appellants filed this present appeal raising the following assignment of errors:

' Rollo, Decision dated OS July 2018, p. 31 5 Records, Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification dated 25 July 2018, pp. 804 to 819 ' Records, Order dated 15 November 2018, p. 987.


ISSUES

I.

of 13

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CHALLENGED ORDINANCE WHICH AMENDED THE COMPREHENSIVE NO SMOKING ORDINANCE OF BALANGA CITY IS CONTRARY TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9211 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE TOBACCO REGULATION ACT OF 2003.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE PROHIBITION IN THE UNIVERSITY TOWN AND ITS THREE (3) KILOMETER RADIUS IS UNREASONABLE.

III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL (WHO FCTC) DOES NOT SANCTION THE THREE (3) KILOMETER PROHIBITIONS WITIN THE UNIVERSITY TOWN.

IV.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE WHO FCTC PREVAILS OVER RA 9211 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE TOBACCO REGULATION ACT OF 2003.

v.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS' EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER TO


of 13

PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE THROUGH THE ASSAILED DECISION IS SUBORDINATE TO THE PROPRIETARY INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONERAPPELLEES.

The Respondents-Appellants contend that they have envisioned the City of Balanga to be a University Town. After identifying the areas (an area covering 80.42 hectares of the City of Balanga)

which may be covered by their project, City Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2008, otherwise known as the University Town Ordinance, was passed. The same came into fruition pursuant to the zoning regulatory power (Comprehensive Land Use Plan) of the City of Balanga under Section 458 of Republic Act No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

Since the University Town was envisioned as a center for learning and education, the City of Balanga regulates all establishments and businesses therein which could affect the health and well-being of the students.

As per studies and statistics gathered by the City of Balanga, it would appear that smoking is one of the leading causes of death in the area. Hence, the City Council formulated measures to prevent the student populace from being affected by the ills of smoking thus giving birth to the challenged Ordinance.

With this in mind, the Respondents-Appellants contend that the enactment of the challenged Ordinance was aimed to protect public health, morals, safety and welfare of the students in the University Town. The City of Balanga therefore in the exercise of police power may interfere with lawful businesses and occupation as the students' rights to public health, morals, safety and welfare occupy a higher plane.

The City of Balanga is also not unaware of Republic Act No. 9211 otherwise known as the Tobacco Regulation Act (RA 9211). It contends that RA 9211 was enacted to control and limit the tobacco industry and not meant as a license to allow smoking in certain areas. The challenged Ordinance was in fact passed with RA 9211 in mind.


of 13

The City of Balanga also contends that having established the metes and bounds of the University Town and the area within the three (3) kilometer radius as center of student and youth activities, smoking, activities related to smoking and tobacco should be prohibited in order to achieve the objective of a highly liveable city conducive for students. The challenged Ordinance did not contemplate a total ban on identified area and within the three (3) kilometer radius of the University Town as residential homes were spared from the coverage of the prohibition. The challenged Ordinance only covers roads and sidewalks, business establishments such as restaurants, coffee shops, bookstores, malls, computer shops and internet cafe's frequented by students.

It likewise contends that outside the University Town and the three (3) kilometer radius therefrom, tobacco sellers and establishments continue to operate their business. Therefore, there is no truth behind the losses allegedly being suffered by the PetitionerAppellee.

The Respondent-Appellants further contend that the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) required States to adopt a measures designed to reduce the devastating health and economic impacts of tobacco smoking. It was also pointed out that the WHO FCTC was adopted more than two (2) years after the enactment of RA 9211. Hence, being the latest law, the WHO FCTC must prevail over RA 9211.

On the other hand, the Petitioner-Appellee contends that the appeal should be dismissed because the Respondents-Appellants availed of the wrong remedy. It argued that the present appeal does not involve any question of fact rather it only delves on pure questions of law. Therefore, the proper remedy was an immediate recourse to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and not an appeal.

Petitioner-Appellee likewise contends that the court a quo correctly ruled that the challenged Ordinance absolutely prohibits the sale, distribution, and advertisement of tobacco products in the University Town and within three (3) kilometers therefrom in total disregard of the provisions of RA 9211 which bans the same only on selected places and allows such activities within one hundred (1 00)

meters from any point of the perimeter of a) schools, b) public playground, or c) other facilities frequented by minors only.


of 13

Petitioner-Appellee adds that the challenged Ordinance also iPegally expanded the enumeration of places as regards the prohibition on the sale of tobacco products and smoking. The Petitioner-Appellee went as far illustrating that under RA 9211, smoking is absolutely prohibited only in a few public places such as centers for youth activity (playschools, preparatory schools, elementary schools, high school, colleges, universities, youth hostels, and recreational facilities .for minors), elevators and stairwells, places where there is fire hazard (gas stations, storage areas for flammable liquids, gas, explosives, or

combustible materials), buildings and premises of public and private hospitals, medical and dental clinics, optical clinics, health centers, nursing homes, dispensaries, laboratories, public conveyances and public facilities (airports, ship terminals, train and bus stations, restaurants

and conference halls), and food preparation areas. While under the challenged Ordinance, apart from smoking, the prohibition extended to the acts of selling, distribution, advertising, and promotion of tobacco products not only within the University Town but also within the three (3) kilometer radius thereof.

Lastly, the Petitioner-Appellee contends that the WHO FCTC, which it considers as foreign law, finds no application in the City of Balanga because there is an existing national legislation (RA 9211).

Hence, between a foreign law (WHO FCTC) and a municipal law (RA 9211), the latter prevails. It went on to argue that the City of Balanga cannot simply pass ordinances which are not consistent with any local law or the Constitution. Since the challenged Ordinance was inconsistent with the provisions of RA 9211, the same must be struck down as unconstitutional.

OUR RULING

Weighing the contentions of both parties, the key issue to be resolved in this case is the validity of the challenged Ordinance. It is likewise worthy to take notice whether or not the WHO FCTC (a treaty where the Philippines is a signatory and therefore forms part of the law of the land through the doctrine of incorporation) prevails over municipal law (RA

9211 ).

We find the appeal unmeritorious.

It is well-settled that statutes and ordinances are presumed valid unless and until the courts declare the contrary in clear and


of 13

unequivocal terms. The mere fact that the ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional or invalid will not entitle a party to have its enforcement enjoined. The presumption is all in favor of validity. The reason for this is obvious7

:

The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people8

.

The question of reasonableness though is open to judicial inquiry. Much should be left thus to the discretion of municipal authorities. Courts will go slow in writing off an ordinance as unreasonable unless the amount is so excessive as to be prohibitive, arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, or confiscatorl.

However, for an ordinance to be valid, not only must it be reasonable, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements, namely: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable10

•

It is also worthy to note that under the first requirement, i.e., an ordinance must not contravene the constitution or any statue, if an ordinance actually contravenes any statute, the same is considered ultra vires11 and void12

.

The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the

7 See Social Justice Society Officers vs. Lim citing Social Justice Society, ·=t. a/. vs. Han. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 187836 & 187916, 25 November 2014. 8 .I d. 9 See City of cagayan De Oror vs. cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc. citing Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Municipality of Victorias, G.R. No. 224825, 17 October 2018. '0 See Tano vs. Socrates citing Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 110249, 21 August

1997. 11 "Ultra vires acts or acts which are clearly beyond the scope of one's authority are null and void and cannot be given any effect." See Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, 31 March 2000. 12 See Allied Banking Corp. vs. Quezon City Government, G.R. No. 154126, 11 October 2005.

CA-G.R.SP No. 159329 ' of 13 Decision

i

national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot b~ superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of :the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their pbwer in the first

I

place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of! the statute13•

In this case, a careful reading of RA 9211 wo~ld show that the att of smoking is absolutely prohibited in specified public places such as a) centers of youth activity like playschools, preparatory schools, elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities, youth hostels and recreational facilities for persons under eighteen (18) years of age, b) elevators and stairwells, c) locations in which fire hazards are present like gas stations, storage areas for flammable liquids, gas, explosives or combustible materials, d) inside buildings, and premises of public and private hospitals, medical, dental, and optical clinics, health centers, nursing homes, dispensaries and laboratories, e) public conveyances and public facilities which includes airport and ship terminals and train and bus stations, restaurants and conference halls except for separate smoking areas, and f) food preparation areas.

!

RA 9211 also provides that the prohibition on the sale or distribution of tobacco covers only one hundred (100) meters from any point of the perimeter of a school, public playground or other facility frequented by minors.

The challenged Ordinance, however, prohibits not only the act of smoking in specified public places but also the acts of selling, distributing, using, advertising and promoting tobacco products and not only within the declared area of the University Town and one hundred (100) meters from any point thereof but as far as three (3)

kilometers from the radius thereof.

Clearly from the foregoing, the City Council of Balanga have overstepped Congress by passing an ordinance which imposes more prohibited acts than those specified under a national statute (RA 9211 ).

Therefore, the challenged Ordinance should be struck down as invalid for being ultra vires since it contravenes RA 9211.

~~See Ferrer, Jr. vs. Bautista citing Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., :G.R. No. 210551, 30 June 2015.

I

I

i ii ' '• i I• ,

CA-G.R. SP No. 159329 Pag~ · l2 of ,13 qecision , 1

1. :: .

1

' : I ' I ' ' i I . Insofar as which law should be applied; th¢ S pre#1Jicourt had

the occasion to rule in the case of Secretary: of Ju~tic vs. :LJpti01:z14 that in a situation where both laws .cannot ~ei recbncfled ~n4 ~I choice has to be m<!de between a rule of mternatwnal l..awj (su . ar 'treaty) and municipal law, it is the latter whjch I ~boul~ b ' u~h ld by the murticipll'i courts. The fact that internbtiqn~l la1 ha i beH ~ade part ~f the law of the land does not neces~Jrlly Hflpl ' thf~ nmacy of international law over national or IljlUn~fipal l~w in • tp. ~.II municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied i ' mbs~ countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

While the Respondents-Appellants claim tMt the challenged Ordinance was in conformity of the WHO FCTC, they cannot simply disregard the provisions of RA 9211 for the plain reason that in this country the latter law governs. Hence, between the WHO FCTC and RA 9211, it is the latter law which should prevail. Therefore, the Respondents-Appellants in drafting the challenged Ordinance should have taken into consideration the provisions of RA 9211.

Be that as it may, since the challenged Ordinanci:e bears a separability clause, such that whenever a part of it is void while another part is valid, the valid portion if susceptible of being separated from the invalid, may stand and be enforced15

•

Since only the amended Section 5 (p) under Section 1 of the challenged Ordinance was sought to be invalidated by the PetitionerAppellee before the court a quo, and considering that the other sections thereof can stand alone, the other sections .of the challenged Ordinance remain valid and enforceable. The RespondentsAppellants must therefore desist from enforcing only the amended Section 5 (p) under Section 1 of the challenged Ordinance against the Petitioner-Appellee.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 05 July 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, Balanga City, Bataan in Civil Case No. 10699 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

".G.R. No. 139465, 18 January 2000. wsee Fernando vs. St. Scholastica's College, G.R. No. 161107, 12 March 2013.


of 13

WE CONCUR:

JANE AURORA C. LANTION I '

Associflte Ju$tice

GABRIEL T. ROBENIOL Associate Justice

RUBEN REYNALDO G. ROXAS Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the court.

JANE AURORA C. LANTION Associate Justice

Chairperson, Special Fifteenth Division

".ERIIFIED TRUE COe'i:

e - Tobacco Control Laws

Documents

Transcript of e - Tobacco Control Laws