Amid economic growth and regional agreements, experts argue that the Philippine travel tax is an anachronistic burden that should be phased out. Rooted in history from the 1950s, this levy no longer fits the current era. Its revenues are not effectively used for tourism, sparking frustration among Filipinos.
The Philippine travel tax, costing P1,620 for economy class and P2,700 for first-class, has drawn ire from many Filipinos, especially online. It is paid by most departing individuals, including citizens, permanent residents, and foreigners staying over a year. This levy is separate from airport fees and uncommon in other parts of Asia, where departure fees are typically included in ticket prices.
The tax's origins trace to Republic Act 1478 in 1956, funding the Board of Travel and Tourist Industry to develop tourism. In 1970, RA 6141 added another levy for Rizal Park and other public parks. Presidential Decree 1183 in 1977 under former President Ferdinand E. Marcos harmonized these taxes to support government programs amid the debt crisis during Martial Law.
Under the Tourism Act of 2009, 50% of travel tax proceeds go to the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA) for infrastructure like roads and ports. Another 40% funds the Higher Education Development Fund for tourism-related courses, and 10% supports the National Commission for Culture and the Arts. Yet, despite years of collections, inter-regional travel remains unimproved, suggesting funds are not effectively benefiting tourists.
In 2024, TIEZA reported P7.8 billion in travel tax revenue, just 0.18% of the government's total P4.419 trillion revenues. Dr. JC Punongbayan, assistant professor at UP School of Economics, states, “It’s high time to abolish a policy as confused and anachronistic as the travel tax.” Abolishing it would align with ASEAN pacts like the 1987 Manila Declaration and 2002 ASEAN Tourism Agreement, promoting intra-ASEAN travel without levies. With middle-class growth, more Filipinos travel abroad, often cheaper than domestic spots due to poor internal infrastructure.
