Covering the Sin Tax Bill: Mostly focused on Policy Issues

PROMINENTLY IN the news in October and November this year was the “sin” tax bill (now known as Republic Act No. 10351 or An Act Restructuring the Excise Tax on Alcohol and Tobacco). The extent of reporting depended on the medium. Newspaper coverage was comprehensive, the reports appearing in the front and inside pages, while a number of columns explained the possible effects of the bill on the economy, government revenues, and citizen health. The reports in television were either event-based or focused on the possible impact of the bill on such groups as tobacco farmers and workers, vendors, cancer survivors, consumers, and health advocates.

The bill, which has since been signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III, aims to increase excise-taxes on cigarettes and liquor.

Media coverage of the bill mostly focused on policy issues. As a health measure, the intention is to save thousands of lives, especially among the youth, from smoking-related deaths. As a revenue measure, it aims to collect billions in revenue from “sin” product consumers. Those opposed to the bill, however, looked at its implications from an economic perspective, arguing that its passage would ruin the tobacco industry.

PJRR reviewed the media’s coverage of the debate on and passage of the bill from October 10 to November 25. PJRR reviewed the coverage of BusinessWorld, BusinessMirror, Malaya Business Insight, Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard Today, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Daily Tribune, The Manila Times, and The Philippine Star. The coverage by TV news programs 24 Oras, Bandila, Newslife, Saksi, State of the Nation with Jessica Soho, and TV Patrol was also monitored during the same dates.

Previous Version

On Oct. 10, Sen. Ralph Recto released his own version of the sin tax bill, which, however, met the disapproval of his colleagues and Malacañang due to its low revenue projection of just P10-15 billion as compared to Malacañang’s previous projection of P60 billion. He was forced to resign as chairman of the Senate Ways and Means committee when Palace officials declared that the Recto version was “a watered-down version” of the original.

Print and television covered the resignation of Recto by putting the event in the context of allegations that he had succumbed to the tobacco and alcohol lobby. Among such reports were: “Sin tax advocates: This is a Recto Morris report” (Inquirer, Oct. 11), “From ‘Recto-Morris to Purisima-San Mig” (Inquirer, Oct. 18); and “Recto Morris, Purisima San Miguel” (BusinessWorld, Oct. 21).

During the first weeks of November, the passage of the sin tax bill as amended was widely covered by the media. Many articles expressed disapproval of the amended version of the bill, alleging that it would be damaging to the tobacco industry.

Anti-poor, Unconstitutional?

Print and television covered such bill-related angles as the Philip Morris Fortune Tobacco Corporation’s reservations about the bill, and the Bukluran ng Mangagawang Pilipino’s (BMP), fears of job loss and the collapse of the tobacco industry in the Philippines. Television showed rallies by tobacco workers from different regions in front of the Senate building and the House of Representatives burning red coffins to show their disapproval of the bill.

An analysis on Nov. 19 by Inquirer business columnist Francis Lim, “Sin tax bill: Flagging some constitutional issues”, said that “the tax measure, in its current form, appears to have a discriminatory effect against the poor who will bear the larger tax burden. It appears regressive in nature, and seeks to impose a higher burden on those who are in the lower brackets of economic class and status. Statutes that discriminate or disadvantage those of lower economic class and status (like the poor) would be met with strict scrutiny by the courts.”

Lobbying

Many newspaper columnists revealed the alleged lobbying by powerful businessmen from the tobacco industry against the passage of the sin tax Bill. Among them were Inquirer columnists Solita Collas-Monsod in her column on Nov. 16, ‘Will tobacco lobby snatch victory from jaws of defeat?’ in which she said “…the tobacco lobby trotted out the same arguments it used eight years ago. Had Sen. Ralph Recto had his way, his sin tax proposal would have handed them a third victory. We know, from past unhappy experience, how Lucio Tan (Fortune Tobacco and others) can get his way with the government, whether it be the executive, legislative, or judicial branch. What may not be so well known is what the tobacco industry—that is, the multinationals—are capable of.”

The possibility that cigarette smuggling would increase once the bill killed the tobacco industry, forcing a massive demand for cheaper cigarettes, was suggested by Senator Edgardo J. Angara in his BusinessMirror Nov. 18 column “Smuggling is on the rise” where he said “…we will have the spectacle of killing our tobacco industry, well, maybe softly but still torturing it to certain demise, less revenues for government and more smokers to take care.” In her Sept. 21 article “2 asecs, 2 senators, and the tobacco lobby”, Monsod refuted the claim that higher excise taxes will lead to more smuggling. She said that “smuggling will take place if it pays to smuggle, period—i.e., where efforts to curtail smuggling are (deliberately?) weak.”

Election-Related

In a news article in the Star, (“Bongbong to Correct Miscalculations in Sin Tax Revenue Projections”, Nov. 19), Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was quoted a number of times as saying that senators must consider the impact on their election chances if they vote for the approval of the bill because they risk losing votes from the tobacco-growing provinces in Northern Luzon. No one from the Northern Provinces was asked to confirm if the Senator’s warning should be taken seriously.

Most of the articles quoted senators but rarely the people actually affected by the bill.

For example, a Nov. 19 article in the Tribune, “Marcos to push sin tax bill amendments” which appeared on the front page, was on Marcos’ decision to push for his proposals for the bill with parts of the story focused on the impact of the senators’ vote on their election chances.

Corruption in the Media

The usual suspicions of media corruption, this time by the tobacco and alcohol lobbies, surfaced when Rappler’s Angela Casuay reported that from Nov. 10 to Nov. 13, 2012, four columnists from three different newspapers used the exact same words that negatively portrayed Sen. Franklin Drilon and his proposed bill during the plenary debates on his version of the bill last Nov. 6.

Marc Logan’s ‘Mga Kwento ni Marc Logan: Iba’t ibang Eksena sa Pagsasabatas ng Sin Tax Bill’ also reported the allegations Oct 21.

Rappler editor-at-large Marites Vitug in her VBlog titled “Corruption in Media” said that the four columnists seemed to be quoting from the same source and that sometimes corporations leak information to columnists whom they bribe to support government policies that benefit the sources of the bribes. The same observations were made by Inquirer columnist John Nery in his Nov. 19 column “Corrupt Journalists” where the four journalists did seem to have used the same talking points from the same “column feed”.

Health over jobs

The Philippines being the ‘smokingest’ country in Southeast Asia, the sin tax bill was covered by the media as a priority. Health advocates were given ample coverage by print and television, among the examples being the Inquirer’s “12 medical associations support Drilon sin tax bill”, which included an interview with UP medical professor Dr. Antonio Dans, who said that 66,000 Filipino lives could be saved by the Drilon bill. The Bulletin’s “Health and Sin Tax Bill”, and news stories from Bandila, Newslife, Saksi, and TV Patrol took a similar tack. (By Nicole Marie Abania, Mary Anne V. Ablanida, Sharmaine A. Ramos, and Titus Caluor)