Case Digest: Gonzales vs. Katigbak

 

Gonzales vs. Katigbak

Facts: The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim, was classified “For Adults Only.” There is the further issue then, also one of first impression, as to the proper test of what constitutes obscenity in view of the objections raised.

In a resolution of a sub-committee of respondent Board of October 23, 1984, a permit to exhibit the film Kapit sa Patalim under the classification “For Adults Only,” with certain changes and deletions enumerated was granted. Then on November 12, 1984, respondent Board released its decision to withhold issuance of permit to exhibit until these deficiencies are supplied. Hence this petition.

This Court, in a resolution of January 12, 1985, required respondent to answer. In such pleading submitted on January 21, 1985, as one of its special and affirmative defenses, it was alleged that the petition is moot as "respondent Board has revoked its questioned resolution, replacing it with one immediately granting petitioner company a permit to exhibit the film Kapit without any deletion or cut [thus an] adjudication of the questions presented above would be academic on the case." Further: "The modified resolution of the Board, of course, classifies Kapit as for-adults-only, but the petition does not raise any issue as to the validity of this classification. All that petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film. The prayer was for the dismissal of the petition.

An amended petition was then filed on January 25, 1985. The main objection was the classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification “is without legal and factual basis and is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film.  Viewed as a whole, there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification.”

Issue: Whether there was grave abuse of discretion in classifying said film as “For Adults Only.”

Held: No. The Court dismissed the petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as “For Adults Only.”

Principles found:

1. Motion pictures are important both as a medium for the communication of ideas and the expression of the artistic impulse.  Their effects on the perception by our people of issues and public officials or public figures as well as the prevailing cultural traits is considerable. Press freedom, as stated in the opinion of the Court, “may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment.”[12]This is not to say that such freedom, as is the freedom of speech, absolute.  It can be limited if “there be a ‘clear and present danger of a substantive evil that [the State] has a right to prevent.
2. Censorship or previous restraint certainly is not all there is to free speech or free press.  If it were so, then such basic rights are emasculated.  It is, however, except in exceptional circumstances a sine qua non for the meaningful exercise of such right.  This is not to deny that equally basic is the other important aspect of freedom from liability.  Nonetheless, for the purposes of this litigation, the emphasis should rightly be on freedom from censorship.  It is, beyond question, a well-settled principle in our juris­diction.
3. The test, to repeat, to determine whether freedom of expression may be limited is the clear and present danger of an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent.  Such danger must not only be clear but also present.  There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of.  The causal connection must be evident.  Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence.  The time element cannot be ignored.  Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable.  There is the requirement of its being well-nigh inevitable.
4. The law, however, frowns on obscenity — and rightly so.
5. There is, however, some difficulty in determining what is obscene.  There is persuasiveness to the approach followed in Roth:  “The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons.
6. The above excerpt which imposes on the judiciary the duty to be ever on guard against any impermissible infringement on the freedom of artistic expression calls to mind the landmark ponencia of Justice Malcolm in United States v. Bustos,[22]decided in 1918.  While recognizing the principle that libel is beyond the pale of constitutional protection, it left no doubt that in determining what constitutes such an offense, a court should ever be mindful that no violation of the right to freedom of expression is allowable.
7. It is quite understandable then why in the Roth opinion, Justice Brennan took pains to emphasize that “sex and obscenity are not synonymous.”[24]Further:  “Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.  The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press.
8. In the applicable law, Executive Order No. 876, reference was made to respondent Board “applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard,”[26]words which can be construed in an analogous manner.  Moreover, as far as the question of sex and obscenity are concerned, it cannot be stressed strongly that the arts and letters “shall be under the patronage of the State.”[27]. That is a constitutional mandate.
9. This being a certiorari petition, the question before the Court is whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion.  That there was an abuse of discretion by respondent Board is evident in the light of the difficulty and travail undergone by petitioners before Kapit sa Patalim was classified as “For Adults Only,” without any deletion or cut.  Moreover its perception of what constitutes obscenity appears to be unduly restrictive.  This Court concludes then that there was an abuse of discretion.  Nonetheless, there are not enough votes to maintain that such an abuse can be considered grave.  Accordingly, certiorari does not lie.
10. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures.  It is the consensus of this Court that where television is concerned, a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set.  Children then will likely be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.  As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population.[34] It cannot be denied though that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young.