Cigarette manufacturers in the Philippines and the United States are facing new challenges to their business.
Last month, President Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 10643, or “The Graphic Health Warning Law,” which aims to instill health consciousness through graphic health warnings on tobacco products.
The Department of Health has been working for the enactment of this law for almost 10 years amid strong opposition from multinational and domestic tobacco companies.
Lawmakers from tobacco-producing districts in the northern part of the country also objected to the measure because of its adverse effects on the livelihood of their constituencies.
With the new law, the Philippines joins Brunei, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Hong Kong in resorting to shocking photos to discourage people from using tobacco products.
By an uncanny coincidence, within the same week, a jury in Florida ordered R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the second biggest cigarette maker in the United States, to pay the widow of a chain smoker who died of lung cancer $23.6 billion in punitive damages. The amount is on top of the $7.3 million in compensatory damages earlier awarded to the widow and the couple’s child, and $9.6 million to the deceased’s son from a previous relationship.
The jury upheld the widow’s complaint that R.J. Reynolds “conspired to conceal the health dangers and addictive nature of its products.”
As it had done in similar situations before, the company said it would appeal what it described as “a runaway verdict” to the Florida Supreme Court and, possibly, all the way to the US Supreme Court.
The chances of R.J. Reynolds getting a favorable verdict appear dicey because, last month, the highest US court declined to hear further appeals from Florida court judgments on similar cases that awarded more than $70 million in damages to the heirs of deceased smokers.
Historically, stock prices of US tobacco firms dip whenever they are slapped with huge damages, only to rebound after the companies mount a successful PR campaign to minimize the adverse effects of the decision, or when a higher court reduces or sets aside the awards.
Health advocates in the Philippines can only drool with envy at numerous judgments rendered by various US courts in favor of relatives of smokers who died of lung cancer or other illnesses that are, directly or indirectly, attributable to the use of tobacco products.
Of the 11 suits filed against local tobacco companies in our courts in recent years, not one has been won. No other business in the country can boast of that impressive record.
Through their highly paid lawyers, these companies have been able to stop the government on its tracks in the implementation of rules designed to discourage smoking or regulate the use of their products.
In 2012, for example, when the Metro Manila Development Authority began arresting people smoking in transportation terminals and gas stations, a Mandaluyong court ordered a stop to the arrests upon the petition of a smoker who could hardly make both ends meet and yet was able to pay the court filing fees. There were speculations that his crusade for “equal enjoyment of the right to smoke” was secretly funded by a group of cigarette makers.
With the vast financial resources at the tobacco companies’ command, it is not surprising that they have been able to, judicially and extra-judicially, delay, prevent or stymie government efforts to regulate the promotion of their products. For now, local manufacturers and importers of local tobacco products can sit tight and continue their present sales and marketing strategies. They still have to await certain actions from DOH’s end.
The DOH is required to issue a maximum of 12 templates of graphic health warnings 30 days after the law takes effect.
Graphic health warnings refer to “the photographic image printed on the tobacco product package which accurately depicts the hazards of tobacco use and is accompanied by textual warning related to the picture.” The warnings shall be printed on 50 percent of the principal display surface of the tobacco package, and shall occupy 50 percent of the front and 50 percent of the back panel of the packaging.
Probably anticipating the sneaky minds of lawyers in going around the requirements, the law specifically states that the warnings “shall be printed in four colors /-cmyk-/ screen 133 lines per inch based on a source file of 300 dpi.” They should be printed or inscribed in a color which contrasts conspicuously with the background of the package or its labels.
Also, the “accompanying text shall be printed in Filipino on the front panel and English on the back panel.” If the container has only one external surface area, “the accompanying text will alternately be in English or Filipino.”
The 12 graphic warning templates shall be rotated periodically for each cigarette brand and variant so that every 24 months the different kinds of warnings shall appear in the market with approximately equal frequency and equal display of warnings.
Barring any hitches in the implementation of the law, the warnings should appear on tobacco products a year after the DOH has issued their templates.
Within the same period, these products are prohibited from using words such as, low tar, light, ultra-light, mild, extra, ultra, and similar terms in any language that claims or misleads a consumer to believe that a tobacco product or variant is healthier, safer or less harmful.
Considering the adverse effects these warnings may have on their revenues, expect the tobacco companies to question the legality of the law before our courts.
Countries with a similar law have reported that sales of tobacco products dropped considerably after graphic warnings were printed on their packages.
For the right price, there is no dearth of lawyers who will, with salivating interest, agree to invoke all kinds of legal arguments, even if absurd or strained, to prevent the full implementation of this law or dilute its intended effects.
For comments, please send your e-mail to rpalabrica@inquirer.com.ph.