National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario and lawyer-publisher Eldrige Marvin Aceron have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the government's collection of the 12 percent value-added tax (VAT) on digital books, arguing that the levy makes reading and access to knowledge more expensive, particularly for students, researchers, and lower-income Filipinos.

In a petition filed before the high court, Almario and Aceron sought a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the VAT on digital books and other digital written works under Republic Act No. 12023, or the VAT on Digital Services Act. 

They also asked the SC to declare the tax unconstitutional.

The petitioners argued that digital books are generally 30 to 50 percent cheaper than printed books, making them the preferred option for many readers. 

Imposing a 12 percent VAT on digital books while physical books often remain tax-exempt places a disproportionate burden on the more affordable format, they said.

“By taxing digital books at 12% while physical books often remain untaxed, R.A. 12023 disproportionately burdens the ‘cheaper’ medium that serves ‘the masses,’” the petition stated.

The petitioners said the tax would make knowledge less accessible and could discourage reading and self-education. 

They warned that the measure could undermine efforts to improve literacy in the country.

They further argued that the law creates what they described as “constitutionally suspect” classifications by exempting educational e-books sold to accredited institutions while imposing taxes on other digital written works, including literature, journalism, political commentary, philosophy, and history.

According to the petitioners, the law also results in medium-based discrimination because digital books are taxed while printed books are not, and recipient-based discrimination because digital books purchased by individuals are taxed while those acquired by institutions may qualify for exemptions.

The petition likewise challenged a provision authorizing the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) commissioner to suspend or block digital services that fail to comply with tax requirements.

Almario and Aceron argued that the power extends to digital book platforms and distributors and could amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on expression.

They also cited the Florence Agreement, an international accord aimed at promoting the widest possible dissemination of educational, scientific, and cultural materials, arguing that its principles should apply to digital books despite having been drafted before the digital era.

The petition further contended that the tax violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, equal protection of the laws, the right to education, and accessibility.

“The substance of a book is its intellectual content, not its medium of delivery,” the petitioners said, arguing that the tax exemption for books under Section 109(R) of the National Internal Revenue Code should likewise cover digital books.

“A Republic that canonizes Rizal as its national hero for the act of writing cannot, consistent with its own Constitution and its own history, tax its citizens for the act of reading,” they added.

Named respondents in the case are Acting Finance Secretary Frederick Go and BIR Commissioner Charlito Mendoza.