Sinning Against the ‘Sin’ Tax Bill

This is not to fault MBI for opposing higher taxes on locally-produced cigarettes. But journalism protocols do require that criticism be based on factual integrity and not just on speculation based on documents whose exact contents and sources are unspecified, and therefore cannot be verified.

There were, as to be expected, opinions that touched upon “sin” tax reforms and smuggling, among them those by UP Economics Professor Benjamin Diokno in his occasional columns for MBI and BW.

In his “On “sin” taxes: Don’t just do it; do it right” published in MBI last Nov. 19, 2012, Diokno proposed questions and considerations based on facts to guide legislators in finalizing the bill. One question asked, “Have the proponents of the bill taken into account the risk of rising illicit trade?”

“It would be unwise to ignore the risk of illicit trade as taxes on cigarettes are increased at rates proposed in both the Senate and House bills.  Complicate that with national security risks, if and when criminals and terrorists take control of the illicit trade,” Diokno added.

BM, in its editorial “Hitting two birds with one stone” published last Nov. 21, 2012, supported the “sin” tax “reform bill”, saying that it “is a vital piece of legislation that we believe will redound to the benefit of the nation in the long run. It should be passed by the Senate and signed into law.”

Despite their stance, BM nevertheless published at least two opinion articles that BAT might also have seen as “disparaging”. “Smuggling is on the rise” published last Nov. 19, 2012 and “Smoke gets in BAT’s eyes” published last Oct. 29, 2012 also linked BAT to smuggling and criticized the “sin” tax bill.

But BM presented a more balanced and fair coverage of the “sin” tax reforms at the height of the discussions compared to MBI.  PJRR found that BM’s total number of “sin” tax-related news reports and opinion articles during 2012’s fourth quarter were almost equal parts ‘anti “sin” tax’, ‘pro “sin” tax’ and ‘neutral’ .

Comparison of ‘Sin’ Tax-Related Articles in Business Newspapers Q4 2012 by Tone

Reader perceptions of bias led to accusations of bribery and unethical behavior last November 2012, when four opinion writers from three different newspapers were accused of plagiarism or of being paid by a tobacco company when they used the exact same words to negatively portray Senator Drilon and his proposed version of the “sin” tax bill during the plenary debates. (http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2012/12/21/covering-the-sin-tax-bill-mostly-focused-on-policy-issues/) (http://www.rappler.com/nation/16119-4-columnists-exposed-for-similar-sin-tax-articles)  But these were middling compared to the sheer number of articles BMI published not only during the debate on the bill but even after it had passed Congress and had been signed into law by President Aquino.

 (With research from CMFR interns, Rexiene Borilla, Jolly Brutas, Angelica Leonor and Siera Mata)

 Business World publisher, Vergel O. Santos is the chair of CMFR’s Board of Trustees