WHILE reading through the newspaper a few months ago, I was surprised to see the headline “Denmark slaps fat tax on foods” (published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last Oct. 4).
“Denmark has imposed a ‘fat tax’ on foods such as butter and oil as a way to curb unhealthy eating habits.
“The Nordic country recently introduced the tax amounting to 16 kroner, or $2.90, per kilogram of saturated fat in a product.
“Ole Linnet Juul, food director at Denmark’s Confederation of Industries, says the tax will increase the price of a burger by around $0.15 and raise the price of a small package of butter by around $0.40.
“The tax was approved by large majority in a parliament in March as a move to help increase the average life expectancy of Danes.
“Denmark, like some other European countries, already has higher fees on sugar, chocolates and soft drinks, but Linnet Juul says he believes the Nordic country is the first in the world to tax fatty foods.”
This reminded me of taxation’s purposes in society. Of course, the obvious reason for the imposition of taxes is to generate revenue for the government to fund its expenditures. Another purpose less popular than the first reason is to regulate human activity by the exercise of the government’s police power.
In Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-32096, Oct. 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 481, the Supreme Court defined police power as the authority of the state to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property to promote the general welfare.
It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. It is that inherent and plenary power of the State that enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. It extends to all the great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of the three inherent powers of the State, far outpacing taxation and eminent domain. It is a ubiquitous and often unwelcome intrusion.
Even so, as long as the activity or the property has some relevance to the public welfare, its regulation under the police power is not only proper but necessary.
Although the imposition of a “fat tax” in the Philippines would still be unlikely considering that it is faced with other problems more pressing and serious than obesity, taxes have long been used in our country to regulate activities as an exercise of the government’s police power.
Taxes have been imposed to minimize crime as a result of alcohol excesses such as the excise tax on alcohol products, and also to promote health such as the excise tax on cigarettes.
Even then, I would not be surprised if Congress eventually thinks of another way to utilize taxation as a way of regulating certain activities, even those far more stranger than a “fat tax.”
* * *
You may contact the author at rester. nonato @yahoo.com.