A ruling was issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) prohibiting flavors in vapor products under Republic Act No. 11467, or the Sin Tax Reform Law.

The ruling clarified that the prohibition remains in effect despite the passage and implementation of Republic Act No. 11900, or the Vaporized Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Products Regulation Act.

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, in a four-page legal opinion dated April 8, 2025, emphasized that the provisions of R.A. 11467 and R.A. 11900 are not inconsistent with each other regarding the regulation of flavors in vapor products.

R.A. 11467 was signed into law by former President Rodrigo Duterte in 2020, while R.A. 11900 lapsed into law in 2022.

According to the DOJ, both laws intend to regulate the sale and distribution of vapor products, including vaporized nicotine and non-nicotine products.

The opinion also stated that R.A. 11900 merely provides specific guidelines on the marketing of such goods and does not repeal the provisions of R.A. 11467 related to the flavor ban.

Remulla explained that the prohibition under the earlier law pertains to the vapor products themselves, while the later law regulates their packaging, labeling, presentation, or marketing. Therefore, the two laws can be harmonized.

“Seeing that there seems to be no inconsistencies between the two laws and there is no clear intent on the part of the legislature to repeal R.A. No. 11467, both laws shall be applied appropriately,” Remulla added.

The legal opinion stemmed from a request by Department of Health Secretary Teodoro Herbosa, who wrote to the DOJ seeking guidance on the regulation of flavors in vapor products under R.A. 11467 and R.A. 11900.

In his letter, Herbosa noted that R.A. 11467 prohibits flavors in vapor products other than plain tobacco or plain menthol, while R.A. 11900 addresses the prohibition of “flavor descriptors.”

The DOH Secretary also pointed out that Section 29 of R.A. 11900 provides that laws inconsistent with it shall be repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.

This prompted Herbosa to seek the DOJ’s opinion on whether the prohibition of flavor descriptors under R.A. 11900 is inconsistent with the flavor ban outlined in R.A. 11467.

“While the two laws pertain to different subjects, that is, the levy and assessment of taxes on vapor products and the regulation of vaporized nicotine and non-nicotine products, we do not perceive the provisions in questions to be contradictory as they relate to the same subject,” the DOJ stressed.

The DOJ concluded that the guidelines under R.A. 11900 for the advertisement of vaporized and non-vaporized nicotine products complement the prohibition under R.A. 11467 on the manufacture, importation, sale, and distribution of flavored products other than plain tobacco or plain menthol.