Ilocos Norte 1st District Representative Sandro Marcos has filed a measure seeking to abolish the Philippine travel tax, arguing that the decades-old levy has outlived its purpose and now acts as a drag on tourism, mobility, and economic competitiveness.

Under the proposal, Filipino travelers—particularly overseas workers, frequent flyers, and families—would be spared from paying a fee that critics describe as an added burden layered on top of already rising airfare, airport charges, and fuel surcharges. Marcos’ push revives a long-running debate: Is the travel tax still necessary in a post-pandemic, globally competitive tourism environment?

What Is the Travel Tax—and Why It Exists

The travel tax is a mandatory fee imposed on individuals departing the Philippines, with certain exemptions. Historically, its proceeds have been channeled to agencies involved in tourism development, cultural promotion, and infrastructure—often cited as support for the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA) and related programs.

Supporters of the tax say it provides a stable funding stream for tourism assets that benefit travelers in the long term. Opponents counter that the mechanism is blunt, regressive, and increasingly redundant—especially as government budgets and tourism receipts have diversified.

Marcos’ Case: Cost, Competitiveness, and Recovery

Marcos’ proposal frames abolition as consumer relief and economic stimulus. In a region where neighboring countries aggressively court tourists with low fees and streamlined departure processes, he argues, the Philippines risks pricing itself out—particularly for regional travelers and price-sensitive markets.

From this lens, abolishing the travel tax could:

• Reduce total travel costs for Filipinos and balikbayans

• Encourage outbound and inbound travel volume

• Support airlines, airports, and tourism workers through higher traffic

• Simplify departure procedures at airports

Proponents say the timing matters. With global travel rebounding unevenly, any friction—financial or procedural—can tip decisions away from Philippine routes.

The Fiscal Counterargument

Skeptics ask a practical question: If the tax is abolished, what replaces the revenue? Tourism agencies rely on predictable funding for maintenance, promotion, and development. Eliminating a dedicated source without a clear substitute could strain programs—especially outside major hubs.

Here, the debate shifts from ideology to design. If abolition proceeds, lawmakers would need to decide whether:

• Funding should be absorbed into the national budget

• Tourism agencies should rely more on user fees at destinations

• Private-public partnerships can offset the gap

In other words, removing the tax is the easy vote; replacing its function is the harder policy work.

Equity and Fairness

Another strand of the discussion centers on equity. The travel tax applies regardless of income, making it proportionally heavier for lower-income travelers. Critics argue that funding tourism through a flat levy on departures effectively taxes mobility—an odd choice in a labor-exporting economy.

Supporters of abolition say this is especially relevant for overseas Filipino workers and families traveling for essential reasons. While exemptions exist, the system can be inconsistent and burdensome to navigate.

Political Context and Optics

The proposal arrives amid broader House discussions about economic relief, revenue efficiency, and regulatory reform. While not directly tied to impeachment debates or budget insertions, the bill touches a sensitive nerve: who pays for development—and how transparently?

Quietly, the measure also tests a recurring tension in Philippine policymaking: targeted fees versus general taxation. Dedicated levies are easier to justify politically but harder to reform; broad-based funding is cleaner but competes annually in the budget process.

Discreet satire, policy edition: everyone loves cheaper tickets—until the bill for infrastructure comes due.

What Happens Next

The proposal will need to pass committee scrutiny, where fiscal impact assessments and stakeholder input—airlines, tourism agencies, airport operators—will shape its fate. Amendments are likely, including phased abolition or partial retention for premium travel classes.

Whether the bill advances will hinge on one question: Can Congress design a transition that helps travelers without hollowing out tourism funding?

For now, Marcos has put the issue squarely back on the agenda. Abolishing the travel tax is not just about removing a fee; it’s about choosing a funding philosophy for tourism in the years ahead.