TAXES imposed on travelers leaving the Philippines could be on the way out after the president’s son filed a bill calling for their abolition and the country’s finance chief said he supported the move.
House Bill 7443, filed by House Majority Leader and Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos, seeks to scrap a system said to have “outlived its purpose.”
“Today, it has become an added cost that restricts mobility and weighs heavily on ordinary Filipinos who simply want to travel for work, family or opportunity,” he said in a statement.
The bill calls for the repeal of taxes imposed by Marcos’ grandfather, Ferdinand Sr., under Presidential Decree (PD) 1183 in 1977 and a provision of the Tourism Act of 2009 that mandated the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (Tieza) to collect the levy.
Travelers have called the taxes, which currently reach P2,700 for first-class passengers and P1,620 for those in economy class, an unnecessary burden.
Marcos said that for families, the amounts quickly add up and divert resources that could otherwise be spent on basic needs or local economic activity.
“When travel becomes more expensive, fewer people move, fewer people spend and fewer opportunities circulate through the economy. Lowering the cost of travel allows Filipino families to allocate their money where it matters most,” he said.
‘Outlier’
The Philippines was also said to have become an “outlier” in the region as many Southeast Asian countries have removed similar travel-related levies to stimulate tourism, trade and people to people exchanges.
Marcos told reporters that the Tieza had an “abysmal record” in terms of absorptive capacity despite claims made by Tourism Secretary Christina Frasco that the travel tax was helping fund tourism infrastructure.
Tieza data showed that travel tax collections reached P7.79 billion in 2024, exceeded the pre-pandemic peak in 2019. By law, half or the amount, or P3.89 billion went to the Tieza for the development of the tourism industry.
A 40-percent share, meanwhile, should go to the Commission on Higher Education and Marcos said that the body’s chairman, Shirley Agrupis, had expressed disappointment over the possible removal of the funding source.
Removing the tax could affect government revenues but Finance Secretary Frederick Go on Wednesday told The Manila Times that “I support the proposal.”
Last year, the Finance department – then headed by now Executive Secretary Ralph Recto — warned of a P5.1-billion hit if a Senate bill calling for the abolition of travel taxes was approved.
Marcos also said that Go had expressed support for the bill.
“I actually had a meeting with Secretary Go of the Department of Finance; he supports the bill and he promised me that any funds that come from the travel tax that goes to higher education, they will find other sources,” he said.
Marcos added that Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri was slated to file a counterpart bill at the Senate and would push it to be included in the legislative agenda of his father, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
‘A trade-off’
Scrapping the tax, Management Association of the Philippines President Donald Lim said, deserves serious consideration.
“Travel costs affect tourism, overseas Filipinos, business mobility and investor decisions, and anything that reduces friction can support growth and job creation,” he said in a Viber message.
“That said, any reform should be done responsibly, with a clear transition plan to ensure tourism development programs remain properly funded through more efficient and transparent mechanisms.”
Reyes Tacandong & Co. senior adviser Jonathan Ravelas said abolishing that tax would create a revenue gap as the collections are used to help finance tourism and airport-related programs.
“In the short term, collections will dip, so the government will need either a replacement source or spending cuts,” he said.
“The upside is cheaper travel could encourage more Filipinos to fly and stimulate tourism—but that payoff isn’t guaranteed,” he added.
“It’s really a trade‑off: immediate revenue loss versus the hope of long-term economic activity. The key is making sure the benefits outweigh what we give up.”