Iglesia Ni Cristo vs CA

7/25/2019 Iglesia Ni Cristo vs CA

1/15

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 119673. July 26, 1996]

IGLESIA NI CRISTO (INC.),petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CORTO! A""EALS, BOAR# O! RE$IE% !OR &OTION "ICTRESAN# TELE$ISION ' HONORABLE HENRIETTA S.&EN#E*, respondents.

# E C I S I O N

"NO, J.+

This is a petition for review of the Decision dated March 24, 1995 of the respondentCourt of Appeas affir!in" the action of the respondent Board of #eview for Motion$ictures and Teevision which %&rated the T' $ro"ra! (An" )"esia ni Cristo*+

$etitioner )"esia ni Cristo, a du or"ani-ed rei"ious or"ani-ation, has a teevisionpro"ra! entited (An" )"esia ni Cristo+ aired on Channe 2 ever .aturda and onChanne 1/ ever .unda* The pro"ra! presents and propa"ates petitioner0s rei"iouseiefs, doctrines and practices often ti!es in co!parative studies with other rei"ions*

.o!eti!e in the !onths of .epte!er, ctoer and Nove!er 1992, petitionersu!itted to the respondent Board of #eview for Motion $ictures and Teevision the

'T# tapes of its T' pro"ra! .eries Nos* 113, 119, 121 and 12* The Board cassifiedthe series as (+ or not for puic viewin" on the "round that the (offend and constitutean attac6 a"ainst other rei"ions which is e%press prohiited aw*+

$etitioner pursued two 728 courses of action a"ainst the respondent Board* nNove!er 2, 1992, it appeaed to the ffice of the $resident the cassification of its T'.eries No* 12* )t succeeded in its appea for on Dece!er 1, 1992, the ffice of the$resident reversed the decision of the respondent Board* orthwith, the Board aowed.eries No* 12 to e puic teecast*

n Dece!er 14, 1992, petitioner aso fied a"ainst the respondent Board CiviCase No* :&92&142;, with the #TC, NC#, :ue-on Cit*


2/15

718 E%hiit (A+, respondent Board0s 'otin" .ip for Teevision showin" its.epte!er 9, 1992 action on petitioner0s .eries No* 115 as foows


3/15


4/15

material involved constitute an attac! against another religion which is e)pressly

prohibited by law Please be guided in the submission of future shows

After evauatin" the evidence of the parties, the tria court issued a writ ofprei!inar in>unction on petitioner0s ond of $1;,;;;*;;*

The tria court set the pre&tria of the case and the parties su!itted their pre&triariefs*


5/15

ause of discretion when it denied per!it for the e%hiition on T' of the three series of(An" )"esia ni Cristo+ on the "round that the !aterias constitute an attac6 a"ainstanother rei"ion* )t aso found the series (indecent, contrar to aw and contrar to "oodcusto!s*+

)n this petition for review on certiorari under #ue 45, petitioner raises the foowin"

issues

I

(7ET7ER 9R "9T T7E 79"9RA'>E C9?RT 98 A##EA>S ERRE; *"

79>;*"@ T7AT A"@ *@>ES*A "* CR*ST9. #R9@RAM *S "9T

C9"ST*T?T*9"A>> #R9TECTE; AS A 89RM 98 RE>*@*9?S EBERC*SE

A"; EB#RESS*9"

II

(7ET7ER 9R "9T T7E 79"9RA'>E C9?RT 98 A##EA>S ERRE; *" "9T79>;*"@ T7AT 'E*"@ A" EBERC*SE 98 RE>*@*9?S 8REE;9M& T7E A"@

*@>ES*A "* CR*ST9. #R9@RAM *S S?'ECT T9 T7E #9>*CE #9(ER 98

T7E STATE 9"> *" T7E EBTREME CASE T7AT *T #9SES A C>EAR A";

#RESE"T ;A"@ER

III


79>;*"@ T7AT T7E MTRC' *S -ESTE; (*T7 T7E #9(ER T9 CE"S9R

RE>*@*9?S #R9@RAMSI$


79>;*"@ T7AT T7E A"@ *@>ES*A "* CR*ST9&. A #?RE> RE>*@*9?S

#R9@RAM *S *";ECE"T A"; C9"TRAR T9 >A( A"; @99; C?ST9MS

The asic issues can e reduced into two 718 first, whether the respondent Boardhas the power to review petitioner0s T' pro"ra! (An" )"esia ni Cristo,+ and 728 second,assu!in" it has the power, whether it "rave aused its discretion when it prohiited

the airin" of petitioner0s rei"ious pro"ra!, series Nos* 115, 119 and 121, for the reasonthat the constitute an attac6 a"ainst other rei"ions and that the are indecent, contrarto aw and "ood custo!s*

The first issue can e resoved e%a!inin" the powers of the Board under$*D* No* 193* )ts .ection / pertinent provides


6/15

6Sec = Powers and Functions.D The '9AR; shall have the following functions&

powers and duties:

%%% %%% %%%

b, To screen& review and e)amine allmotion pictures as herein defined& televisionprograms& including publicity materials such as advertisements& trailers and stills&

whether such motion pictures and publicity materials be for theatrical or non

theatrical distribution for television broadcast or for general viewing& imported or

produced in the #hilippines and in the latter case& whether they be for local viewing or

for e)port

c, To approve& deleteob$ectionable portion from andFor prohibitthe importation&

e)portation& production& copying& distribution& sale& lease& exhibition and/or

television broadcastof the motion pictures& televisionprogramsand publicity

materials& sub$ect of the preceding paragraph& which& in the $udgment of the '9AR;applying contemporary 8ilipino cultural values as standard& are ob$ectionable for

being immoral&indecent&contrary to lawandFor good customs& in$urious to the

prestige of the Republic of the #hilippines and its people& or with a dangerous

tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime& such as but

not limited to:

i, Those which tend to incite subversion& insurrection& rebellion or sedition against the

State& or otherwise threaten the economic andFor political stability of the StateG

ii, Those which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people& theirgovernment andFor duly constituted authoritiesG

iii, Those which glorify criminals or condone crimesG

iv, Those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the mar!et for violence or

pornographyG

v, Those which tend to abet the traffic in and use of prohibited drugsG

vi, Those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of anyperson& whether living or deadG

vii, Those which may constitute contempt of court or of any /uasi$udicial tribunal& or

pertain to matters which aresub-judicein nature +emphasis ours,

The aw "ives the Board the power to screen, review and e%a!ine 'll -l/00oo4'5.B the cear ter!s of the aw, the Board has the power to (approve, deete


7/15

% % % andor prohiit the % % % e%hiition andor teevision roadcast of % % % teevisionpro"ra!s % % %*+ The aw aso directs the Board to app (conte!porar iipino cuturavaues as standard+ to deter!ine those which are o>ectionae for ein" (i!!ora,indecent, contrar to aw andor "ood custo!s, in>urious to the presti"e of the #epuicof the $hiippines and its peope, or with a dan"erous tendenc to encoura"e the

co!!ission of vioence or of a wron" or cri!e*+$etitioner contends that the ter! (teevision pro"ra!+ shoud not incude rei"ious

pro"ra!s i6e its pro"ra! (An" )"esia ni Cristo*+ A contrar interpretation, it is ur"ed,wi contravene .ection 5, Artice ))) of the Constitution which "uarantees that (no awsha e !ade respectin" an estaish!ent of rei"ion, or prohiitin" the free e%ercisethereof* The free e%ercise and en>o!ent of rei"ious profession and worship, withoutdiscri!ination or preference, sha forever e aowed*+

Fe re>ect petitioner0s su!ission which need not set us adrift in a constitutionavoa"e towards an uncharted sea* reedo! of rei"ion has een accorded a -'-u the fra!ers of our funda!enta aws, past and present* Fe have affir!ed this

preferred status we aware that it is (desi"ned to protect the roadest possie iert ofconscience, to aow each !an to eieve as his conscience directs, to profess hiseiefs, and to ive as he eieves he ou"ht to ive, consistent with the iert of othersand with the co!!on "ood*+urisprudence theintersectin" u!ras and penu!ras of the ri"ht to rei"ious profession and worship* To?uote the su!!ation of Mr* @ustice )sa"ani Cru-, our we&6nown constitutionaist


8/15

But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect

the public his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the !tate As

great as this liberty may be& religious freedom& li!e all the other rights guaranteed in

the Constitution& can be en$oyed only with a proper regard for the rights of others "t

is error to thin# that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the

!tate and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare The inherent policepower can be e)ercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society And this is

true even if such practices are pursued out of sincere religious conviction and not

merely for the purpose of evading the reasonable re/uirements or prohibitions of the

law

@ustice ran6furter put it succinct GThe constitutiona provision on rei"iousfreedo! ter!inated disaiities, it did not create new privie"es* )t "ave rei"ious iert,not civi i!!unit* I- 8 0 o5 o5 8oo50-y -o l040ou o45', o-o5 o5 8oo50-y -o l' :8'u o l040ou o45' *

Accordin", whie one has fu freedo! to eieve in .atan, he !a not offer theo>ect of his piet a hu!an sacrifice, as this woud e !urder* Those who iterainterpret the Biica co!!and to ("o forth and !utip+ are nevertheess not aowed tocontract pura !arria"es in vioation of the aws a"ainst i"a!* A person cannotrefuse to pa ta%es on the "round that it woud e a"ainst his rei"ious tenets toreco"ni-e an authorit e%cept that of od aone* An atheist cannot e%press hisdiseief in acts of derision that wound the feein"s of the faithfu* The poice power cane vaid asserted a"ainst the )ndian practice of the sutteeorn of deep rei"iousconviction, that cas on the widow to i!!oate hersef at the funera pie of her husand*

Fe thus re>ect petitioner0s postuate that its rei"ious pro"ra! isper seeond

review the respondent Board* )ts puic roadcast on T' of its rei"ious pro"ra!rin"s it out of the oso! of interna eief* Teevision is a !ediu! that reaches eventhe ees and ears of chidren* The Court iterates the rue that the e%ercise of rei"iousfreedo! can e re"uated the .tate when it wi rin" aout the cear and presentdan"er of so!e sustantive evi which the .tate is dut ound to prevent, i*e*, seriousdetri!ent to the !ore overridin" interest of puic heath, puic !oras, or puicwefare* A laissezfairepoic on the e%ercise of rei"ion can e seductive to the iera!ind ut histor counses the Court a"ainst its ind adoption as rei"ion is andcontinues to e a voatie area of concern in our countr toda* Across the sea and inour shore, the oodiest and itterest wars fou"ht !en were caused irreconciaerei"ious differences* ur countr is sti not safe fro! the recurrence of this stutifin"

strife considerin" our warrin" rei"ious eiefs and the fanaticis! with which so!e of uscin" and caw to these eiefs* Even now, we have et to sette the near centur odstrife in Mindanao, the roots of which have een nourished the !istrust and!isunderstandin" etween our Christian and Musi! rothers and sisters* Theewiderin" rise of weird rei"ious cuts espousin" vioence as an artice of faith asoproves the wisdo! of our rue re>ectin" a strict et aone poic on the e%ercise ofrei"ion* !o u, ;'ll 8o-0u -o u:


9/15

'-0o'l =80 -o -; 0'-0o'l0-y o 5'. !o ; l040o 0/0 ' 0-=80 -oy, -; S-'- ;oul o- -' -0ll*

)t is aso petitioner0s su!ission that the respondent appeate court "rave erredwhen it affir!ed the ruin" of the respondent Board %&ratin" its T' $ro"ra! .eries Nos*115, 119, 121 and 12* The records show that the respondent Board disaowed the

pro"ra! series for (attac6in"+ other rei"ions* Thus, E%hiits (A+, (A&1+, 7respondentBoard0s 'otin" .ip for Teevision8 revea that its reviewin" !e!ers %&rated .eries 115for (% % % critici-in" different rei"ions, ased on their own interpretation of the Bie*+The su""ested that the pro"ra! shoud on e%pain petitioner0s (% % % own faith andeiefs and avoid attac6s on other faiths*+ E%hiit (B+ shows that .eries No* 119 was %&rated ecause (the )"esia ni Cristo insists on the itera transation of the ie and sasthat our Cathoic veneration of the 'ir"in Mar is not to e condoned ecause nowhereit is found in the ie that we shoud do so* This is intoerance % % %*+ E%hiit (C+shows that .eries No* 121 was %&rated (% % % for reasons of the attac6s, the do on,specifica, the Cathoic rei"ion* % % % 7T8he can not te, dictate an other rei"ion thatthe are ri"ht and the rest are wron" % % %*+ E%hiit (D+ aso shows that .eries No* 12

was not favora reco!!ended ecause it (% % % outra"es Cathoic and $rotestant0seiefs*+ n second review, it was %&rated ecause of its (unaanced interpretations ofso!e parts of the Bie*+


10/15

persuade others to his own point of view& the pleader& as we !now& at times& resorts to

e)aggeration& to vilification of men who have been& or are prominent in church or

state or even to false statements 'ut the people of this nation have ordained in the

light of history that inspite of the probability of e)cesses and abuses& these liberties

are& in the long view& essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of

the citi%ens of democracy

The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions bypetitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however, unclean theymay be. Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the tate to favor anyreligion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. !eligious dogmas andbeliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers, especially thefanatics, the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the tate from leaningtowards any religion. "is#a#vis religious differences, the tate en$oys no ban%uet ofoptions. &eutrality alone is its fixed and immovable stance. 'n fine, respondent boardcannot s%uelch the speech of petitioner 'glesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks otherreligions, even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in ourcountry. 'n a tate where there ought to be no difference between the appearance andthe reality of freedom of religion, the remedy against bad theology is bettertheology. The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best servedby encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. (hen the luxury of time permits, themarketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is thespark of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth.

T;0.The respondents cannot aso re on the "round (attac6s a"ainst anotherrei"ion+ in %&ratin" the rei"ious pro"ra! of petitioner* Even a side"ance at .ection /of $D 193 wi revea that it is not a!on" the "rounds to >ustif an order prohiitin" the

roadcast of petitioner0s teevision pro"ra!* The "round (attac6 a"ainst anotherrei"ion+ was !ere added the respondent Board in its #ues* ustif the u:>u-

u0;5-of a show which offends an rei"ion* )t cannot e utii-ed to >ustif 0o8o;0of speech* )t !ust e e!phasi-ed that E** 3, the aw prior to $D 193,incuded (attac6 a"ainst an rei"ion+ as a "round for censorship* The "round was not,however, carried over $D 193* )ts deetion is a decree to disuse it* There can eno other intent* )ndeed, even the E%ecutive Depart!ent espouses this view* Thus, inan pinion dated Nove!er 2, 195 then Minister of @ustice, now $resident of the.enate, Neptai on-aes e%pained
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jul1996/119673.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jul1996/119673.htm#_edn21


11/15

6) ) )

67owever& the /uestion whether the 'RM#T +now MTRC', may preview and censor

the sub$ect television program of *"C should be viewed in the light of the provision of

Section =& paragraph +c, of #; 123H& which is substantially the same as the provision

of Section =& paragraph +c, of E9 "o 34HA& which prescribes the standards ofcensorship& to wit: immoral& indecent& contrary to law andFor good customs& in$urious

to the prestige of the Republic of the #hilippines or its people or with dangerous

tendency to encourage the commission of violence& or of a wrong. as determined by

the 'oard& applying contemporary 8ilipino cultural values as standard. As stated& the

intention of the 'oard to sub$ect the *"C.s television program to previewing and

censorship is prompted by the fact that its religious program ma!es mention of beliefs

and practices of other religion. On the face of the law itself, there can conceivably be

no basis for censorship of said program by the Board as much as the alleged reason

cited by the Board does not appear to be within the contemplation of the standards of

censorship set by law.5 +*talics supplied,

!ou-;. )n %&ratin" the T' pro"ra! of the petitioner, the o- '0l -o'ly -; 8l' ' - '4 ul* )n)merican Bible ociety v. City of *anila,


12/15

@ustices o!es and Brandeis, the test attained its fu fowerin" in the decade of theforties, when its u!rea was used to protect speech o-; -;' u:/0/ 8;*ustifies such invasion of free speech as is necessar toavoid the dan"er*+ The i!!inence re?uire!ent of the test was thus di!inished and tothat e%tent, the protection of the rue was wea6ened* )n 1939, however, the stren"th ofthe test was reinstated inBrandenburg v. -hio,urisprudence, there is reason toapp the cear and present dan"er test to the case at ar which concerns speech thatattac6s other rei"ions and coud readi provo6e hostie audience reaction* I- 8'o-: ou:- -;'- l040ou -u-; 0-u: ' 0-u: -0:ly *

)t is aso opined that it is inappropriate to app the cear and present dan"er test tothe case at ar ecause the issue invoves the 8o--of speech and not the ti!e,pace or !anner of speech* Ae"ed, uness the speech is first aowed, its i!pactcannot e !easured, and the causa connection etween the speech and the eviapprehended cannot e estaished* The contention overoo6s the fact that the case at

ar invoves videotapes that are @-'and hence, their speech content is 6nownand not an ?uantit* iven the specific content of the speech, it is not unreasonaeto assu!e that the respondent Board, with its e%pertise, can deter!ine whether itssuphur wi rin" aout the sustantive evi feared the aw*

ina, it is aso opined Mr* @ustice Kapunan that (% % % the deter!ination of the?uestion as to whether or not such viification, e%a""eration or farication fas within ories outside the oundaries of protected speech or e%pression is a


13/15

Fhie the thesis has a ot to co!!end itsef, we are not read to hod that it isunconstitutiona for Con"ress to "rant an ad!inistrative od ?uasi&>udicia power topreview and cassif T' pro"ra!s and enforce its 800o u:ectionaepuication* )n e%cudin" an puication for the !ais, the o>ect shoud e not tointerfere with the freedo! of the press or with an other funda!enta ri"ht of thepeope* This is the !ore true with reference to artices supposed ieous than to otherparticuars of the aw, since whether an artice is or is not ieous, is funda!enta a

e"a ?uestion* I o o -; -o : u o8 o l', -; '8-0o o -;#08-o o "o- 5u- : u:


14/15

0ermosisima, 3r., 3*, >oins the concurrin" and dissentin" opinion of 3* Kapunan*/anganiban, 33., see separate concurrin" opinion*"itug, and *endoza, 33., see separate opinion*&arvasa, C.3., in the resut*Bellosillo, 3.,on eave.

unction, the case was raffed to Br* 1;4, then presided @ud"e, now Associate @ustice of the Court of Appeas Ma%i!iano Asuncion*


15/15

Documents

Iglesia Ni Cristo vs CA