Case Digest: INC v. Court of Appeals

 

INC v. Court of Appeals

 

Summary of Facts.

1. Iglesia ni Cristo, petitioner; BRMPT or MTRCB now, respondent (who)
2. Sometime in September, October and November 1992, Iglesia ni Cristo submitted to the Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television (BRMPT) its pre-taped episodes of its TV program Ang Iglesia ni Cristo. These were series no. 115, 119, 121 and 128.
3. They were rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing. (On what grounds?) These TV programs allegedly “offend[ed] and constitute[d] an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its “attacks” against contrary religious beliefs. (what and why)
4. INC went to court to question the actions of the respondent Board. The RTC ordered the respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the necessary permit for its TV programs.
5. But on appeal by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. It ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute an attack against another religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary to law and contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner INC appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

Issues.

 

(1)  W/n the respondent Board has the power to review the petitioner's TV program; and

            -can be resolved by examining the powers of the Board under PD no. 1986 (see full text)

(2)  Assuming it has the power, whether the respondent Board gravely abused its discretion when it prohibited the airing of the petitioner's program?

 

 

Ruling.

 

[The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the CA insofar as the CA sustained the action of the respondent Board’s X-rating petitioner’s TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121. It also voted 10-4 to AFFIRM the CA insofar as the CA it sustained the jurisdiction of the respondent MTRCB to review petitioner’s TV program entitled “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.”]

 

Principles/grounds.

1. Exhibit G (letter) reads that “the television episode in question is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression under Article 3,  Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.” There is no indication that “the episode poses any clear and present danger sufficient to limit the said constitutional guarantee.”
2. Section 3(c) of PD 1986 suppresses the petitioner’s freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. “Attacks against other religions” also not among the grounds to justify an order prohibiting the broadcast of the petitioner’s TV program.

 

1.    YES, the respondent Board has the power to review the petitioner's TV program.

 

Petitioner contends that the term “television program” [in Sec. 3 of PD No. 1986 that the respondent Board has the power to review and classify] should not include writ issued by a superior court for the reexamination of an action of a lower court. religious programs like its program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.” A contrary interpretation, it is urged, will contravene section 5, Article III of the Constitution which guarantees that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.”

 

[The Court however] rejected the petitioner’s postulate. Petitioner’s public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our country today. . . [T]he Court] shall continue to subject any act pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational exercise to the irrationality of man. For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still.

 

2.    YES, respondent Board gravely abused its discretion when it prohibited the airing of petitioner’s religious program.

 

[A]ny act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows. It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption. If it fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be struck down. It failed in the case at bar.

 

The evidence shows that the respondent Board x-rated petitioners TV series for “attacking” other religions, especially the Catholic Church. An examination of the evidence . . . will show that the so-called “attacks” are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. The videotapes were not viewed by the respondent court as they were not presented as evidence. Yet they were considered by the respondent court as indecent, contrary to law and good customs, hence, can be prohibited from public viewing under section 3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. xxx.

 

The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however unclean they may be. Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. . . In fine, the respondent board cannot squelch the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions, even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country. In a State where there ought to be no difference between the appearance and the reality of freedom of religion, the remedy against bad theology is better theology. The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of duelling ideas. When the luxury of time permits, the marketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth.

 

In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents failed to apply the clear and present danger rule. In American Bible Society v. City of Manila, this Court held: “The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right can be justified like other restraints on freedom of expression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.” In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we further ruled that “. . . it is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.”

 

The records show that the decision of the respondent Board, affirmed by the respondent appellate court, is completely bereft of findings of facts to justify the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute impermissible attacks against another religion. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the life of a reality already on ground.

 

Supplementing facts.

1. Petitioner pursued two courses of action against the Board.

November 28, 1192 - appealed to the Office of the President (classification of TV series no. 128)

December 18, 1992 - it succeeded in its appeal. The Office of the President reversed the decision and it allowed series no. 128 to be publicly telecast.

December 14, 1992 - filed civil case (with RTC, NCR QC). It alleged that the Board acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in requiring the petitioner to submit the tapes and x-rated them. The Board, on the other hand, invoked (to appeal to as furnishing authority) its power under PD no. 1986 in relation to Art. 201 of the RPC.

2. June 4, 1993 - trial court held a hearing on petitioner’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner submitted its documentary evidence (see “exhibits” on full-text case). Board also submitted its “exhibits” (see full-text, page 2 and so on). After evaluating evidence, trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on petitioner’s bond, Php 10,000.00

December 15, 1993 - trial court issued judgment; ordering BRMPT to grant INC permit for all of the program’s series. Petitioner prayed for (a). Deletion of second paragraph of the dispositive portion of decision and (b). The Board to be perpetually enjoined from requiring petitioner to submit for review tapes

March 7, 1993 - trial court granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Second portion of the Court’s order dated December 15 directed petitioner to refrain from offending and attacking other existing religions in the program.

3. Board appealed to CA.

March 5, 1995 - CA reversed the trial court’s decision. It ruled that the Board has the power and jurisdiction to review the TV program, and it did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit.

 

Legal terms.

1. Certiorari - writ issued by a superior court for the reexamination of an action of a lower court.
2. Vis-a-vis - in relation to
3. Parens patriae - parent of the nation
4. Ponencia  - a bitter quarrel between two parties
5. Ipso facto - by the fact itself

 

Concurring Opinions

1. Panganiban
2. Mendoza

Dissenting Opinions

1. Vitug

Concurring and dissenting Opinions

1. Padilla
2. Melo
3. Kapunan