Case 1713/2010

The plaintiffs, a tobacco company, brought an unconstitutionality action before the Court, arguing that the Tobacco Control law, which gave the executive branch the authority to require that tobacco manufacturers use health warnings covering a minimum of 50% of the surface area of cigarette packages, violated the constitutional principles of legal reserve and separation of powers, by unlawfully delegating legislative powers to limit personal rights, including those to property, free commerce, intellectual property, and speech.

The Court dismissed the action.

The Court found that the law did not authorize to the Executive Branch unlimited powers to restrict individual rights. Furthermore, the law had been passed with the intent to uphold the State’s essential, inherent duty to protect the public health and based on the adoption of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The Ministry of Public Health, as the body tasked with the protection of the public health, was properly delegated to implement the law through an administrative regulation. The Court noted that the Ministry is authorized to adopt all measures it deems to necessary to promote public health, and tobacco control legislation forms part of this public good.

“la aprobación de la Ley No.18.256 tiene su razón de ser en el desarrollo de una política sanitaria llevada adelante por el Estado, profundizando la campaña contra el tabaquismo y reconoce su antecedente legal inmediato en la sanción de la Ley No. 17.793 por la que se aprobó el convenio Marco de la O.M.S. para el Control del tabaco (CMCT), adoptado por la 56a. Asamblea Mundial de la Salud el 21 de mayo de 2003 que instruyó sobre las medidas eficaces para que en todos los paquetes figure la Leyenda sobre las advertencias sanitarias, que describan el efecto nocivo del consumo de tabaco.” (original, page 3)

“…the approval of Law No. 18.256 was based on the development of a public health policy being advanced by the State, widening the campaign against tobacco use, and acknowledging the role of the law’s immediate forerunner, Law No. 17.793, which approved the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), adopted by the 56^th World Health Assembly on May 21, 2003, and which provided guidance on effective tobacco control measures, including the inclusion of a health warnings legend on all cigarette packaging, describing the harmful effects of tobacco use.” (translation, page 2)

“…la Salud Pública es un cometido esencial inherente del Estado, y en casos como el de autos la legislación sobre tabaquismo resulta un bien jurídico superior que participa de la noción de orden público (art. 44 de la Constitución), por lo que resulta natural que se cometiera al M.S.P. dicha reglamentación, pues de acuerdo a la Ley Orgánica de Salud Pública No. 9.202, le compete al mismo adoptar todas la medidas que estime necesarias para mantener la Salud colectiva, dictando todos los reglamentos y disposiciones necesarias para este fin primordial (art. 2)” (original, page 4-5)

“…protection of the public health is an essential, inherent duty of the State, and in cases such as the case at hand, tobacco control legislation serves a superior legal interest that forms part of the notion of the public good (as per Art. 44 of the Constitution). Therefore it is to be expected that the MSP would be tasked with implementing such legislation, given that, as per Organic Law of Public Health No. 9.202, the MSP is authorized to adopt all measures it deems necessary in order to maintain the public health, and issue all regulations and orders necessary for this essential purpose (Art. 2).” (translation, page 3)