The Senate voted on third and final reading to approve a bill regulating vaporized nicotine and non-nicotine products, with at least five of those who voted “yes” expressing reservations, but stressing it was better to have this measure as a foil against tobacco smoking, as such will give quitters a “soft landing.”
Nineteen voted yes, two abstained — Senators Bong Go and Manny Pacquiao—and two dissented, Senators Pia Cayetano and Kiko Pangilinan.
Five of the 19 affirmative voters, led by Minority Leader Franklin M. Drilon, whose first wife Violeta Calvo was a serial smoker who died of cancer, read into the records their explanation of votes.
Drilon noted he had, in 24 years as lawmaker, consistently worked against measures favoring tobacco, singling out the 2003 landmark measure where he worked with the late doctor-senator Juan M. Flavier and which became an omnibus measure to regulate smoking. Flavier, he recalled, transformed his “Yosi Kadiri” advocacy as former health secretary into legislation.
Sen. Richard Gordon said he abhors smoking and repeatedly counseled friends and relatives to kick the habit. But Gordon stressed he saw vaping as providing many of them a soft landing, and if such would help them quit tobacco, he would favor vapes.
Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara recalled how his late father, former Senate President Edgardo J. Angara, quit smoking after collapsing on the tennis court.
Sens. Joel Villanueva and Majority Leader Migs Zubiri also explained their “yes” with reservations.
Meanwhile, Cayetano, who had lengthily interpellated Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto, the main sponsor of SB 2239, or the Vaporized Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Products Regulation Act on the floor, also explained her vote. Her key objection was the new measure’s move to remove the regulatory powers from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and move this to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
She reminded colleagues of how, “during the deliberations of the Sin Tax Bill around two years ago, HTPs [heated tobacco products] and vapes were included. No one questioned why they were included, because everyone accepted. I don’t recall. Everyone accepted from my recollection that they accepted that they are a sin product. They are harmful products. There was no discussion on that, in fact, the question was, how harmful are they, and how beneficial can they be? And that is why we did not ban. We did not ban it because it was accepted that we will allow these products, but we will regulate. Because there could be potential dangers, especially to the youth, and to the old.”
Cayetano continued: “And so we decided, under the Sin Tax law, that the minimum age would be 21 years old; we limit the flavors because studies show that what attracts the youth to try vaping is the flavors. So we limited it to Plain Tobacco and Plain Menthol. And we decided that rightfully, the jurisdiction would be with the FDA. The FDA has clearly, under its laws that we also passed some nine years ago, I believe, it’s any product. It could be food, it could be drugs, it could be cosmetics, devices, anything that may have an effect on health and would require regulation.”
So, Cayetano asked, “would that not include the sin products? Whether they’re alcohol or an alternative to smoking that could be better? That studies might show in the future are great? Should it not be regulated, mind you, dear colleagues, we never banned, in the Sin Tax law, nor did we ban in this case, e-cigarette regulation. All we are saying is that we will regulate. That was the condition under the Sin Tax law.”
Also, Cayetano reminded her peers, “upon the request of members of Congress that wanted a transition period, we granted 36 months. That transition period doesn’t end until May. So this law has not even been implemented. They are currently unregulated, anything can be sold, your honors. So that is where we are.”
Cayetano asserted that SB 2239 “reverses the protective measures that we as a Congress, as a Senate put in. Why would we reverse it, your honors? No one says we cannot sell these products, which a lot of you choose to believe may be helpful. And I have made it very clear that it is possible that these products will help a lot of people change and shift. It is possible it could save lives. We don’t know for sure but in the meantime, we are allowing it to be sold. Pwedeng ibenta. What would the FDA have done? The FDA would have done similar to what is done in the US – regulate. Regulate, that is all the intervention that I have tried to push from the beginning.”
The senator said it hurts her deeply “that I have not been able to convince my colleagues that simply by regulating and allowing the FDA to do its job is not good enough for the Senate. It hurts me that after all these years… I am unable to obviously communicate that well. Because what I hear from our colleagues, until the very end, is we want to give this product a chance to save lives, to bring people away from smoking. Well, that is exactly what this bill would have allowed to do with supervision of the FDA.”
