TIO vs VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD GR 75697 June 18, 1987 Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.

FACTS: - Presidential Decree 1987 or the creation of Videogram Regulatory Board is being assailed by Tio (petitioner) on the ground that the title of the decree does not implicate the taxation, among others, included upon execution of the law. - Tio states that the tax in the decree, provided in Section 10 of it, (30%) is too harsh and that it will impede thus suppress the video industry in the country. - He claims the tax should have been implied in the title of the decree. ISSUES: Case and Topic issue: - Is the decree unconstitutional on the ground that its title did not state the tax that would be imposed along with it? - Is section 10 of the decree a rider? HELD/ RATIONALE: - No. The decree is not unconstitutional because of its title because it adhered to the One SubjectOne Title rule. This means its title was comprehensive enough to include the general purpose of the statute. Also, an act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be as long as they are consistent to the subject and are providing methods of execution of carrying out the main objective. - No. This section of the decree is reasonably necessary to accomplish its objective. It is not necessary that the title express each and every part the statute wishes to accomplish. It is enough that the parts are related and germane to the subject matter. RELEVANT LAWS - Sec. 26 (1), Art VI, 1987 constitution Sec. 19 (1) Art VIII, 1973 Constitution -