Tobacco ads can be displayed in point-of-sale establishments

The Marikina Regional Trial Court (RTC) recently 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, 2008 upheld the interpretation of the majority of members of an inter-agency committee (IAC) tasked to administer and implement the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, regarding 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 IAC said advertising materials are permissible for as long as the same are disseminated within the premises of point-of-sale establishments. This includes signages on top of sari-sari stores and other retail outlets.

However, representatives of the Department of Health and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance insisted that any outdoor advertising materials may only be posted inside the interior walls of retail establishments.

To clarify the disputed provision, Fortune Tobacco Corp. (FTC) 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.

FTC argued that the wording of the law stipulates that the word “premises” “must be given its common ordinary meaning.”

Judge Gutierrez said that “the term premises is 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.”

This section defines “premises” as a “tract of land and the building and buildings thereon, including the open spaces between buildings located on the same tract 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 also said that “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 statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be derived from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says.”