Lower vape taxes will worsen the vape epidemic

Today, Feb. 23, the House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing to deliberate on House bills on a number of tax measures, including bills which propose to lower taxes on vape products.

House Bill (HB) 5207, authored by House Deputy Speaker Kristine Singson-Meehan et al., HB 5364 authored by Representatives Rufus and Maximo Rodriguez, and HB 5212 by Representative Ferdinand Hernandez, all similarly claim to endeavor to alleviate the burden of illicit tobacco trade and “ensure fair competition among legitimate industry players.” But the bills actually carry egregious proposals, including imposing a lower tax rate on e-cigarettes or vape products.

Under Republic Act 11467 of 2020, taxes on vape products differentiate between nicotine salt and freebase nicotine. As of 2026, nicotine salts are taxed at P60.29 per milliliter and freebase nicotine is taxed at a lower P69 per 10 milliliters or P6/milliliter.

This kind of differentiation in vape tax rates is only done in the Philippines. Although some countries, like Sweden, apply differentiated tax rates based on nicotine concentration levels, only the Philippines distinguishes nicotine salt formulations from freebase formulations. Most countries tax vape liquids at the same rate regardless of formulation.

According to the Department of Finance (DoF), this two-tiered system creates inefficiencies and tax loopholes. Vape manufacturers tend to misdeclare their products as freebase nicotine rather than nicotine salt, given that it is difficult to differentiate between the two. And so, to simplify tax administration, getting rid of the two-tier system and instead taxing all kinds of vape liquids at the same rate would be worthwhile.

But what HBs 5207, 5364, and 5212 do is unify the tax rates for nicotine salt and freebase at a low P10 per milliliter, a stark drop from the current P60.29/mL tax rate of nicotine salts. The measure masquerades as “tax rationalization” which “plugs revenue leaks” when all it does is lower current tax rates.

A similar bill to be discussed today, authored by House Ways and Means Chair Representative Miro Quimbo, HB 1316, which was criticized by advocates for its provision granting tax incentives to the tobacco industry, at least unifies vape taxes at a higher rate of P61.425/mL.

Further, HBs 5207, 5364, and 5212 only increase taxes on vapor products and do not increase taxes on heated tobacco products (HTPs), which introduce similar levels of harm and yet are taxed much lower than both cigarettes and the higher tier of vape products.

Health advocates have strongly opposed the lower excise tax rate for vapor products, and argue that tax rates must be equalized at the prevailing higher rate: P60.29 per milliliter, or even higher. Further, the gap between the tax rates of heated tobacco products and vape products needs to be narrowed.

The bills justify the “differentiated and lower excise tax rate for vapor products” by citing alignment with “harm reduction strategies.” In Rep. Singson-Meehan’s bill, the explanatory note writes “a lower tax rate will encourage smokers to transition to less harmful alternatives.”

However, the tobacco industry’s claim of vape products being a safer alternative to cigarettes has been debunked by numerous studies over the years. One of the latest additions to the literature debunking this myth is a February 2026 study published in Public Health Reports by Dr. Stanton Glantz and Dr. Andre Luiz Oliveira da Silva, noting that “healthcare providers and public health authorities should stop promoting e-cigarettes as a meaningfully safer alternative to cigarette smoking.”

The meta-analysis, which analyzed 124 studies on the association of e-cigarette use with disease outcomes in the general population, showed that there is no distinguishable difference in the odds of disease for current e-cigarette users compared to cigarette smokers.

Lowering taxes on vape products will lead to revenue losses, an irresponsible move at a time when the government is facing a serious fiscal problem.

From a public health perspective, lowering vape taxes will only worsen the ongoing “vapedemic.” According to National Nutrition Survey data, the population of adolescent vape users (aged 10-19) jumped from an estimated 37,513 in 2021 to 423,185 in 2023. This is a 1,100% increase in a span of two years — likely a result of weak regulation, including tax rates that are too low and the passage of RA 11900, which lowered the age of access to vapes from 21 to 18 years old and lifted the flavor ban.

This time last year, Congress passed House Bill 11360, or what advocates branded the Sin Tax Sabotage Bill, which proposed to lower the annual indexation of tobacco and vape taxes and would have led to 2 million new smokers and P175 billion in foregone government revenue. In the face of public backlash, the bill lowering tobacco taxes was not passed in the Senate; yet, it is disturbing that the latest House Bills have similar provisions to the Sin Tax Sabotage Bill.

The difference is that the current bills focus on vape products and will eventually make these products even more affordable for their target market: the vulnerable youth.

Pia Rodrigo and Gage Andal are researchers at Action for Economic Reforms.