RA 10351:

THE EFFECTS OF THE AWARENESS OF THE SIN TAX LAW TO

CIGARETTE SMOKERS

By:

Feliz Camelle B. Ebro

An Action Research Submitted in Partial fulfilment of the Requirements in

Legal Research and Thesis Writing

New Era University

College of Law

December 2018

1
INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking is one of the biggest problems not only in the Philippines but
in the whole world. Smoking affects personal and environmental aspects of an
individual who has engaged themselves to it. And the most affected will be the health
of an individual, smokers and secondhand smokers causing hard to cure diseases and
worse, death. Tobacco kills around 6 million persons every year. More than 5 million
of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco consumption while more than 600 000
are the result of non-smokers being exposed to secondary smoke. (World Health
Organization, 2011)

In the Philippines, the health department evaluates that 87,000 Filipinos

succumb every year from difficulties caused by tobacco smoking. In the other words,
10 Filipinos die every hour from cigarette smoking related illness. On the other hand,
38% of the smokers in the Philippines are from the poor families, spending ninety-two
(92) pesos a month for tobacco which accounts for the 2.5% of their monthly
expenditure. Therefore, it adds burdensome for the Filipino individuals in whom they
are buying cigarettes rather than buying what they truly needed that is why The
Philippine government made and still making laws in order to reduce or if possible
prevent the cigarette consumption and to secure the health and general welfare of
every Filipinos. The RA 10351 otherwise known as Sin tax Law of 2012. It aims to
increase tobacco taxes here in the Philippines. This is one way of the government to
counter the growing numbers of smokers. Recently Another act of legislation to lower
cigarette consumption is RA 10643 also known as “Picture-based Health Warning
Law”, an act to effectively instill health consciousness through Picture-based Warning
on tobacco products Discouraging the smokers by inserting pictures to tobacco
products for the effect of the smoking to their health.

A recent report from the Philippine health department states over 1 Million
Filipinos had quit smoking basing it from the latest data of the Philippine`s Global Adult
Tobacco survey which turned that over a Million Filipino Smokers had quit smoking.
Interventions particularly Tobacco Taxation was cited as one of the main factors that
pushes Smokers from turning away from smoking. (Santos, 2017)

Basing from studies, tobacco taxation on cigarette products is one of the most
effective interventions to decrease and prevent tobacco consumption. The impact of
tobacco taxes among adolescents and young adults may also be affected by
knowledge or insight of cigarette price changes, as one of the earliest steps in tax
increases leading to changes in smoking behaviors. (Chen, 2011; Cantrell, 2008) A
price increase on a pack of cigarettes would lower demand for cigarette products by
about 4% for the general adult population in high income countries. Tobacco taxes will
give benefit to those smokers who quit, reducing the overall use of tobacco, and put
cease smoking on the chart of those who continue to smoke. Continuing Increased
taxes also have a good impact on non-smokers by reducing their exposure to
secondary smoke. (Bader, 2011) the study of Yoo (2016) shows that increases in
cigarette prices cause the reduction in cigarette consumption. Therefore, many
policymakers suggest that the increase in cigarette prices is the best option to
decrease the smoking rate. Hence this study is conducted to identify the possible
effects of increase taxation on cigarette products towards cigarette consumption.

2
Research Questions/Objective:

This study aims to determine the effects of the awareness of the sin tax law to
smokers and is there a significant relationship between the level of awareness of the
respondents and effect of the Sin Tax Law to the smokers.

Significance of the Study

The proposed study provides a better insight on what are the possible
outcomes of the sin tax law to cigarette users especially the youth talking about their
awareness of the law and how it affects their consumption of cigarette each day. The
study will give a proper point of view on how legislated laws operate and how
awareness of the law by its citizen affects their usual routine. This research will also
unravel the possible effects of the awareness of the law towards the consumption of
cigarette users.

Literature Review

This study involves RA 10351 otherwise known as the Sin Tax Law which
restructures excise tax on tobacco products. There shall be levied, assessed and
collected on cigarette products. An ad valorem tax equivalent to twenty percent (20%)
of the net retail price also an increase of 1.75 pesos on every cigarette products. the
law also stipulated an annual increase on every cigarette products. This study aims to
determine the effectiveness of the implementation and rationale of the sin tax law
especially in its goal of decreasing the number of cigarette consumption and whether
awareness of the law will affect smokers on their usual routine in smoking.

Cigarette Consumption

Cigarette is a commonly abused drug by the youth. Today, more people are
smoking and consuming more cigarettes per capita than ever before. Young people
who smoke experience an early onset of cough, phlegm production and shortness of
breath on exertion. The earlier a person begins to smoke the greater is the risk of
diseases such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cardiovascular diseases and lung
cancer. Because of the long delay between cause and full effect, people tend to
misjudge the hazards of cigarettes. Young people do not witness high morbidity and
mortality until they reach middle age (Pradesh, 2013).

About 70% of the 46 million smokers in the United States (US) desire to quit,
with 3% of all smokers quitting and staying quit each year. Large decreases in smoking
prevalence have, in part, been achieved through stronger tobacco control policies.
Still, smoking remains a leading cause of premature death in the US and globally
(Ayers, 2011).

According to Siegel (2015), cigarette smoking continues to cause numerous

deaths from multiple cancers despite half a century of decreasing prevalence. The
smoking downturn is likely reflected in the generally lower proportions of deaths
3
caused by smoking in 2011 than in 2000 to 2004 for the 10 overlapping cancer sites
Cigarette smoking is a costly, prevalent public health problem. The US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention attribute more than 400 000 deaths and $95 million
in lost productivity to smoking during 2000-2004. Approximately 20% of adults still
smoke daily despite widespread knowledge of smoking's health effects and increasing
economic costs to smokers due to increasing taxes. Thus, more effective interventions
to prevent smoking, motivate smoking cessation, and prevent relapse are needed
(Belsky, 2013).

There were 34 countries where the average number of cigarettes per daily
smoker per day was less than 10, 78 countries with average consumption between 10
and 20 cigarettes per day, and 75 countries with consumption greater than 20
cigarettes per day. Total exposure to tobacco and associated risks to health are
related to both intensity and prevalence (Ng, 2014).

Estimated US adults have had approximately 14 million major medical

conditions that were attributable to smoking. This figure is generally conservative
owing to the existence of other diseases and medical events that were not included in
these estimates. Cigarette smoking remains a leading cause of preventable disease
in the United States, underscoring the need for continuing and vigorous smoking-
prevention efforts (Rostron, 2014).

Smoking Bans, Policies, and Advertisements Related to Cigarette

Consumption

The study of Pechman & Reibling (2006) has proven right the assumption of
the researchers that an anti-smoking advertisement, as it is, has an effect in one way
or another to the smokers. They indicated that smoker’s reactions to anti-smoking
advertisements may be moderated by their personality traits.

As the harmful effects of secondhand smoke become more widely appreciated,

a number of countries have attempted to limit the health risks to the population at large
by prohibiting smoking in public. On March 26, 2006, Scotland introduced a legislative
ban on smoking in enclosed public places (Menzies, 2006).

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the first-ever treaty

devoted to public health, calls for legislation to reduce or eliminate TSP. Currently,
over 120 countries have ratified the FCTC and are thus obligated to implement some
form of smoke-free legislation. There is thus an urgent need to rigorously evaluate the
effects of national-level smoke-free legislation (Fong, 2008).

Legislation to ban smoking in public places is currently a major area of interest

across Canada with all provinces enacting some form of legislation. The purpose of
the current study is to look at the overall impact of a public smoking ban on rates of
acute myocardial infarction, smoking prevalence, and public support. (Lemstra,
2008;Daynard, 2008). In the study of Winkler (2015), it was found out that there will

4
be a decrease in cigarette consumption if the implementation of anti-smoking policies
will be strengthened.

The campaign for the cessation of smoking in the youth has cost the Philippine
government and other non-profit organizations a hefty amount of money. Despite all
the efforts, no cigarette campaign can umbrella the whole population of young-adult
smokers. All anti-smoking advertisements may not be equally persuasive. Thus, a
critical question facing tobacco control officials and their advertising agencies is how
to create effective anti-smoking advertisements, particularly for young adult
(Pechman, 2007; Cesaroni, 2008; Levy, 2006).

There’s already a law in the Philippines banning in public places –Republiuc

Act 9211 or The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 –and the Philippines has been a
signatory to a tobacco control treaty for more than a decade.

And now, President Duterte signed an Executive Order 26 on Smoking Ban

which sets strict guidelines for designated smoking areas and bans them altogether in
schools, including universities and recreational facilities for minors.

Many policies are being implemented to lower such consumption but in this
study, we will focus on increased excise tax on cigarette products. It is considered as
one of the most effective ways in lowering cigarette consumption.

RA 10351, otherwise known as the Sin Tax Reform 2012, appears to have
successfully put together the desirable provisions of the House and Senate not only
simplifies tax administration and increases tax revenues, but also eliminates the
preferential tax treatment given to existing brands by doing away with the freeze in
price classification. However, earmarking of the incremental revenues, despite
arguments against it, continues to be one of its major features (Macaraig, 2012).

Effects of Tax Increase to Cigarette Consumption.

The study of Hyland (2005) shows that behavior of smokers towards smoking
changes especially due to increasing the price of cigarettes. Price sensitive smokers
are the ones most likely to change their smoking behavior because of the increase in
price. This will also lead to a change in their daily consumption of cigarettes.

In the study of Chaloupka (2012) higher taxes are effective in reducing the
death, disease and economic costs caused by tobacco use. The positive health impact
is even greater when some of the revenues generated by tobacco tax increases are
used to support tobacco control, health promotion and/or other health-related activities
and programs. The same is found by Choi, 2013, an increase on the price of cigarettes
will surely diminish cigarette consumption. Such increase will lead to the quitting of
cigarette smokers from smoking. Price increase on cigarettes is a stepping stone for
smokers in quitting smoking. The impact of the tax increase will depend upon the

5
magnitude of the price increase. Raising the price and increasing tobacco products is
probably the most powerful policy tool in reducing tobacco use and another benefit
that this policy can add on to is that it also cost-effective. Taxes and prices increases
have great potential to stimulate cessation or reduction of cigarette consumption.
(Lunze, 2013; Bader, 2011; Choi, 2009; Gigliotti, 2014; Gallus, 2006; Lee, 2007; Hu,
2010; Sung, 2005)

In the study of Keller (2014) when tax increases do occur, it is incumbent on

the tobacco control, public health, and healthcare communities to leverage the power
of tax increases and concurrent media campaigns to increase quit attempts, cessation
service utilization, and ultimately long-term cessation. On the other hand, the study of
Alamar (2006) and Lemstra (2007) indicate an increase in social unacceptability
towards smoking and increase in tobacco taxes has the same effects in reducing
cigarette consumption. The study of Coady (2013) to maximize public health impact,
cigarette tax increases should be paired with efforts to limit the flow of untaxed
cigarettes entering jurisdictions with high cigarette pack prices.

According to the assessment of Republic Act No. 10351, Implementing

Guidelines: Revenue Regulation No. 17-2012 which aims to restructure the existing
taxes imposed on tobacco products affects the lives of many Filipinos whether directly
or indirectly. In fact, dating back to 2009, based on Global Adult Tobacco Survey
(GATS), the Philippines have an estimated 17.3 million tobacco consumers. According
to the assessment of the law, groups which are more likely to respond to price changes
tend to quit smoking, giving them the health benefits of the law. In this practice in
implementing guidelines on the tobacco taxes, there is an improvement on the public
health impact as it eliminates the level of smokers in the Philippines.
(http://www.ntrc.gov.ph/images/journal/j20140910b.pdf),

Awareness of the Law

The role of general awareness is extremely important in reducing different

health complications brought about by smoking to smokers (Roychowdhury,
2005).Knowledge of key tobacco control measures contained in the law was a factor
in determining that the law exists (Tachfouti, 2011;O’connor, 2006). It is essential that
there is more sensitization of the general public or else the chances of failure remain
high. It is therefore important to disseminate information about the law in order to
eliminate smoking in public places (Olowookere, 2014). Governments enact smoke
free laws, it is important to develop strategies to educate not only the general
population, but the specific groups of employees who will be involved in the effective
implementation of these laws (Odukoya, 2016; Deluna, 2015Botello-Harbaum, 2009).

6
Conclusions

The following conclusions are derived from findings.

1. Cigarette smokers would likely opt out to smoking considering their acceptance
if a law is created, even this will make them sacrifice their vices, for the general welfare
and improvement of own health status. The majority of the youth would definitely
lessen their consumption of cigarettes regardless of all the reasons why they are
engaged in smoking when the government discourages them by increasing the price
of the cigarettes for the benefit of their individual health status.

The awareness of the law according to its implementation, objectives and

mechanism plays big role on the people’s acceptability of such even it was created for
them to abstain from their vice.

2. Reasons of smoking vary from age to age; younger ones smoke due to peer
pressure and older ones use cigarettes for past-time. This shows that as we grow
older, the reasons that affect our decision or how we see and things change
accordingly.

3. Youth smokers are just slightly informed about the elements of R.A. 10351 or
the Sin Tax law, they only know that the law just exists but they are not knowledgeable
enough about it with regards to its implementation, mechanism and objectives.

4. The number of smokers who reduced their consumption from the year 2012-
2013 sin tax law first salvo of implementation is relatively far lesser from the smokers
who remained their consumption and sacrifices expenses due to the increase of price
and those who chose to spend more and stay the number of consumption as they
used to do in 2012. Thus, it is concluded that RA 10351 is not effective in deterring
smokers from consuming not only to the reason of the lesser discouraged smokers
but also it has encouraged these people to have more spending due to higher prices.

References

Alamar, B., &Glantz, S. A. (2006).Effect of increased social unacceptability of cigarette

smoking on reduction in cigarette consumption. American journal of public
health, 96(8), 1359-1363.

Bader, P., Boisclair, D., &Ferrence, R. (2011). Effects of tobacco taxation and pricing
on smoking behavior in high risk populations: a knowledge
synthesis. International journal of environmental research and public
health, 8(11), 4118-4139.

Belsky, D. W., Moffitt, T. E., Baker, T. B., Biddle, A. K., Evans, J. P., Harrington, H., ...
&Poulton, R. (2013). Polygenic risk and the developmental progression to

7
 heavy, persistent smoking and nicotine dependence: evidence from a 4-decade
longitudinal study. JAMA psychiatry, 70(5), 534-542.

Botello-Harbaum, M. T., Haynie, D. L., Iannotti, R. J., Wang, J., Gase, L., & Simons-
Morton, B. (2009). Tobacco control policy and adolescent cigarette smoking
status in the United States. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(7), 875-885.

Callison, K., &Kaestner, R. (2014). Do higher tobacco taxes reduce adult smoking?
New evidence of the effect of recent cigarette tax increases on adult
smoking. Economic Inquiry, 52(1), 155-172.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC. (2011). Vital signs: current
cigarette smoking among adults aged≥ 18 years--United States, 2005-
2010. MMWR.Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 60(35), 1207.

Cesaroni, G., Forastiere, F., Agabiti, N., Valente, P., Zuccaro, P., &Perucci, C. A.
(2008).Effect of the Italian smoking ban on population rates of acute coronary
events. Circulation, 117(9), 1183-1188.

Chaloupka, F. J., Yurekli, A., & Fong, G. T. (2012). Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control
strategy. Tobacco control, 21(2), 172-180.

Choi, K., & Boyle, R. G. (2013). Minnesota smokers’ perceived helpfulness of 2009
federal tobacco tax increase in assisting smoking cessation: a prospective
cohort study. BMC public health, 13(1), 965.

Choi, T. K., Toomey, T. L., Chen, V., & Forster, J. L. (2011). Awareness and reported
consequences of a cigarette tax increase among older adolescents and young
adults. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25(6), 379-386.

Coady, M. H., Chan, C. A., Sacks, R., Mbamalu, I. G., &Kansagra, S. M. (2013). The
impact of cigarette excise tax increases on purchasing behaviors among New
York city smokers. American journal of public health, 103(6), e54-e60.

Fong, G. T., Hyland, A., Borland, R., Hammond, D., Hastings, G., McNeill, A., ...&
Howell, F. (2006). Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in
support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of
comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland:
findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco control, 15(suppl 3), iii51-
iii58.

Gallus, S., Schiaffino, A., La Vecchia, C., Townsend, J., & Fernandez, E. (2006). Price
and cigarette consumption in Europe. Tobacco control, 15(2), 114-119.

Gellert, C., Schöttker, B., & Brenner, H. (2012). Smoking and all-cause mortality in
older people: systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of internal
medicine, 172(11), 837-844.

8
Gigliotti, A., Figueiredo, V. C., Madruga, C. S., Marques, A. C., Pinsky, I., Caetano,
R., ... &Laranjeira, R. (2014). How smokers may react to cigarette taxes and
price increases in Brazil: data from a national survey. BMC public health, 14(1),
327.

Hu, T. W., Mao, Z., & Shi, J. (2010). Recent tobacco tax rate adjustment and its
potential impact on tobacco control in China. Tobacco control, 19(1), 80-82.

Huang, J., Zheng, R., & Emery, S. (2013). Assessing the impact of the national
smoking ban in indoor public places in china: evidence from quit smoking
related online searches. PLOS one, 8(6), e65577.

Hyland, A., Bauer, J. E., Li, Q., Abrams, S. M., Higbee, C., Peppone, L., & Cummings,
K. M. (2005). Higher cigarette prices influence cigarette purchase
patterns. Tobacco Control, 14(2), 86-92.

Keller, P. A., Greenseid, L. O., Christenson, M., Boyle, R. G., &Schillo, B. A.

(2015).Seizing an opportunity: increasing use of cessation services following a
tobacco tax increase. BMC public health, 15(1), 354.

Kim, A. E., Ribisl, K. M., Delnevo, C. D., &Hrywna, M. (2006).Smokers' beliefs and
attitudes about purchasing cigarettes on the Internet. Public Health
Reports, 121(5), 594-602.

Koh, H. K., Judge, C. M., Robbins, H., Celebucki, C. C., Walker, D. K., & Connolly, G.
N. (2005). The first decade of the Massachusetts tobacco control
program. Public health reports, 120(5), 482-495.

Lemstra, M., Neudorf, C., &Opondo, J. (2008). Implications of a public smoking

ban. Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de
Sante'ePublique, 62-65.

Levy, D., de Almeida, L. M., &Szklo, A. (2012). The Brazil SimSmoke policy simulation
model: the effect of strong tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and
smoking-attributable deaths in a middle income nation. PLoS Med, 9(11),
e1001336.

Marlow, M. L. (2007). Do tobacco-control programs lower tobacco consumption?

Evidence from California. Public Finance Review, 35(6), 689-709.

Menzies, D., Nair, A., Williamson, P. A., Schembri, S., Al-Khairalla, M. Z., Barnes, M.,
...&Lipworth, B. J. (2006). Respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function, and
markers of inflammation among bar workers before and after a legislative ban
on smoking in public places. Jama, 296(14), 1742-1748.

Mons, U., Nagelhout, G. E., Allwright, S., Guignard, R., van den Putte, B., Willemsen,
M. C., ... &Breitling, L. P. (2012). Impact of national smoke-free legislation on

9
 home smoking bans: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy
Evaluation Project Europe Surveys. Tobacco Control, tobaccocontrol-2011.

Ng, M., Freeman, M. K., Fleming, T. D., Robinson, M., Dwyer-Lindgren, L., Thomson,
B., ...& Murray, C. J. (2014). Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in
187 countries, 1980-2012. Jama, 311(2), 183-192.

O’connor, R. J., Giovino, G. A., Fix, B. V., Hyland, A., Hammond, D., Fong, G. T., ... &
Cummings, K. M. (2006). Smokers’ reactions to reduced ignition propensity
cigarettes. Tobacco control, 15(1), 45-49.

Olowookere, S. A., Adepoju, E. G., &Gbolahan, O. O. (2014).Awareness and attitude

to the law banning smoking in public places in Osun State, Nigeria. Tobacco
induced diseases, 12(1), 6.

Owusu-Dabo, E., Lewis, S., McNeill, A., Gilmore, A., & Britton, J. (2011). Support for
smoke-free policy, and awareness of tobacco health effects and use of smoking
cessation therapy in a developing country. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 572.

Pechmann, C., &Reibling, E. T. (2006). Antismoking advertisements for youths: an

independent evaluation of health, counter-industry, and industry
approaches. American Journal of Public Health, 96(5), 906-913.

Pierce, J. P., Messer, K., White, M. M., Cowling, D. W., & Thomas, D. P. (2011).
Prevalence of heavy smoking in California and the United States, 1965-
2007. Jama, 305(11), 1106-1112.

Rostron, B. L., Chang, C. M., &Pechacek, T. F. (2014).Estimation of cigarette

smoking–attributable morbidity in the United States. JAMA internal
medicine, 174(12), 1922-1928.

Roychowdhury, S., Roychowdhury, G., &Sen, U. (2005). Assessment of awareness

level on tobacco and smoking habits as risk factors for cancer among lung and
laryngeal cancer patients in Kolkata-A case control study. Asian pacific Journal
of Cancer prevention, 6(3), 332.

Schaap, M. M., Kunst, A. E., Leinsalu, M., Regidor, E., Ekholm, O., Dzurova, D.,
...&Mackenbach, J. P. (2008). Effect of nationwide tobacco control policies on
smoking cessation in high and low educated groups in 18 European
countries. Tobacco control, 17(4), 248-255.

Siegel, R. L., Jacobs, E. J., Newton, C. C., Feskanich, D., Freedman, N. D., Prentice,
R. L., &Jemal, A. (2015). Deaths due to cigarette smoking for 12 smoking-
related cancers in the United States. JAMA internal medicine, 175(9), 1574-
1576.

Tachfouti, N., El Rhazi, K., Berraho, M., Benjelloun, M. C., Slama, K., &Nejjari, C.
(2011). Knowledge and attitude about antismoking legislation in Morocco

10
 according to smoking status/Connaissanceset attitudes concernant la
legislation antitabac au Maroc en fonction du statuttabagique. Eastern
Mediterranean Health Journal, 17(4), 297.

Winkler, V., Lan, Y., &Becher, H. (2015). Tobacco prevention policies in west-African
countries and their effects on smoking prevalence. BMC public health, 15(1),
1216.

Yoo, B. (2016). The impact of increased cigarette prices on cigarette consumption.

11