1/29/2020 Coffeeholic Writes: PITA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362; G.R. NO.

80806; 5 OCT 1989]

POSTS SUBSCRIBE TO REVOLUTION CHURCH COMMENTS

Coffeeholic Writes
Home

PITA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362; G.R.

NO.80806; 5 OCT 1989] HTTP Error 404.0 - Not
Sunday, February 08, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Found
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
The resource you are looking
for has been removed, had its
Facts: On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign name changed, or is
temporarily unavailable.
initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements
of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxilliary Services Bureau, Western
Police District, INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized and
Most likely causes:
confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers
The directory or file specifi
along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications and other reading ed does not exist on the W
eb server.
materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later The URL contains a typogr
burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C.M. aphical error.
A custom filter or module,
Recto Avenue, Manila, in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several such as URLScan, restricts
access to the file.
officers and members of various student organizations.

Among the publications seized, and later burned, was "Pinoy Playboy"
magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. Things you can try:
Create the content on the
Plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of Web server.
Review the browser URL.
preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, as Create a tracing rule to tra
superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila, seeking to ck failed requests for this
HTTP status code and see
enjoin said defendants and their agents from confiscating plaintiff’s which module is calling Se
tStatus. For more informat
magazines or from preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming that ion about creating a tracin
the magazine is a decent, artistic and educational magazine which is not
per se obscene, and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional
guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. Plaintiff also filed an
Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against HTTP Error 404.0 - Not
Found
indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy
Playboy" Magazines, pending hearing on the petition for preliminary The resource you are looking
for has been removed, had its
injunction. The Court granted the temporary restraining order. The case
name changed, or is
was set for trial upon the lapse of the TRO. RTC ruled that the seizure was temporarily unavailable.
valid. This was affirmed by the CA.

Search
Issue: Whether or Not the seizure violative of the freedom of Custom Search
expression of the petitioner.

Held: Freedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the
right to protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to
public morals, as indeed we have laws punishing the author, publishers
and sellers of obscene publications. However, It is easier said than done to
say, that if the pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's
sake but rather for commercial purposes, the pictures are not entitled to
any constitutional protection. Using the Kottinger rule: the test of
obscenity is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is
to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral
influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as

cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/pita-vs-court-of-appeals-178-scra-362_08.html 1/3
1/29/2020 Coffeeholic Writes: PITA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362; G.R. NO.80806; 5 OCT 1989]
being obscene may fall." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as an indecency. Ultimately "whether a picture is
obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case and
that the question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate
sense of the community reached by it." The government authorities in the
instant case have not shown the required proof to justify a ban and to
warrant confiscation of the literature First of all, they were not possessed Blog Advertising - Get Paid to Blog
of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography,
and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by way of a
search warrant. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the
Enter your email address:
issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion an obscenity
seizure is in order and that;

1. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be
Subscribe
seized are obscene and pose a clear and present danger of an evil Delivered by FeedBurner
substantive enough to warrant State interference and action;
RECENT POSTS
2. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed
obscene. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on Electronic mus
the judge’s sound discretion; Jun 11 - formula feeding
Electronic Mu
Jun 08 - lactose intolerance
Pinoy Bloggers
May 16 - love letter Society (PBS)
technique PinoyBlogoSphere.co
m
Apr 30 - giving

View My Stats
Apr 29 - passion
0 comments:
Recent Posts Widget by
Post a Comment ReviewOfWeb
CATEGORIES

Enter your comment... Animal Kingdom (2)

Bar Examination (8) My BlogCatalog
Body Talk (13) BlogRank
Add to Technorati
Career/Workplace/Jobs
Favorites
Comment as: mydestinee2016 Sign out
(17)
Case Digests (459)
Commercial Law (21)
Publish Preview Notify me Computer (1) Personal Blogs -
Criminal Law (30) BlogCatalog Blog
Directory
Economy (14)
Education (6)
Fashion (2)
Food (16)
Great Place and
Destinations (1)
Growth and
Development (26)
Health (22)
Home (12)
Household (12)
How to (5)
Internet (4)
Kitchen (13)
Labor Law (86)
Legal Ethics (32)
Legal Matters (1)
Lifestyle (7)
Love/Relationships (26)

cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/pita-vs-court-of-appeals-178-scra-362_08.html 2/3
1/29/2020 Coffeeholic Writes: PITA VS. COURT OF APPEALS [178 SCRA 362; G.R. NO.80806; 5 OCT 1989]
Parenting (9)
Pleasing Personality (4)
Political Law (247)
Pregnancy (4)
Science (4)
Taxation (43)
Technology (5)
Tips (59)
Uncategorized (11)

Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com

cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/pita-vs-court-of-appeals-178-scra-362_08.html 3/3