You are on page 1of 1

TIO vs VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD 151 SCRA 208 Principle: Requirements as to title of bills FACTS: The petition assails

the constitutionality of PD No. 1987 entitled “An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board” with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. Following its promulgation is the annual tax of 5% and 30% on gross receipts payable to the local government. The petitioner’s grounds is that the imposition of tax is a rider and is harsh and confiscatory, oppressive and/or unlawful restraint of trade. It is also alleged that the imposition of taxes is invalid since the title of the bill said only for the creation of the Videogram Regulatory Board, not for the imposition of taxes. This violates the One-Subject-One-Title Rule ISSUES: Whether or not the imposition of taxes is invalid in the promulgation of PD No. 1987 HELD: No. RATIONALE: The constitutional requirement that “Every Bill shall be expressed in the title thereof” is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary that the title express each and every end that the stature wishes to accomplish. The requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the statutes are related and germane to the subject matter expressed in the title , or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign with the general subject and title. In the case at hand, the title may be read as only for the creation of the VRB, but the imposition of taxes is a direct consequence of the act, to perform its purpose to regulate and rationalize the heretofore uncontrolled distribution of videograms.