Iglesia Ni Cristo v.

Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 119673 July 26, 1996

PUNO, J

FACTS:

On the months of September, October, and November 1992, Ang Iglesia ni Cristo’s TV program
series no. 116, 119, 121, and 128 were marked as X or not for public viewing by the Board of Review for
Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB) arguing that they "offend and constitute an attack
against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law." Petitioner appealed to the Office of the
President for TV series no. 128 to be reconsidered; it succeeded and was publicly broadcasted.

In addition, petitioner filed a civil case against the respondent Board alleging that it acted
without or with grave abuse of discretion in requiring them to submit the VTR tapes of its TV program
and in x-rating them. Respondent Board retaliated underpinning its power under PD No. 1986 in relation
to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner ordering the
respondent Board to grant the petitioner the permit for all the series of their program. However,
petitioner is directed to refrain from offending and attacking other existing religions in showing "Ang
Iglesia ni Cristo" program.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration praying for the (a) removal of the 2 nd paragraph of the
decision and (b) for the Board to be enjoined from requiring the petitioner to submit for review the
tapes of its program. The court then granted both of the petitioner’s prayer. After the Board’s motion
for reconsideration was denied, it appealed the case to the Court of Appeals.

From there, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled in favor of the
Board arguing that (1) the respondent board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program and
(2) the respondent Board did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied the permit for the
exhibition on TV of the three series on the ground that the materials constitute an attack against
another religion. The court also found the series "indecent, contrary to law and contrary to good
customs.”

ISSUES:

(1) first, whether or not the respondent Board has the power to review petitioner's TV program "Ang
Iglesia ni Cristo" - YES

(2) second, assuming it has the power, whether or not it gravely abused its discretion when it prohibited
the airing of petitioner's religious program, series Nos. 116, 119 and 121, arguing that they constitute an
attack against other religions and that they are indecent, contrary to law and good customs. - YES

RE: Issue no. 1 - whether or not the respondent Board has the power to review petitioner's TV program
"Ang Iglesia ni Cristo"
Section 3 of PD 1986 - Powers and Functions of the Board

(b) To screen, review and examine all motion pictures as herein defined, television programs, 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 Philippines and in the latter case, whether they be for local viewing or for
export.

(c) To approve, delete objectionable portion from and/or prohibit the importation, exportation,
production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion
pictures, television programs and publicity materials, subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in the
judgment of the BOARD applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable
for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the
Republic of the Philippines and its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission
of violence or of a wrong or crime.

RE: Issue no. 2 - whether or not it gravely abused its discretion when it prohibited the airing of
petitioner's religious program, series Nos. 115, 119 and 121, arguing that they constitute an attack
against other religions and that they are indecent, contrary to law and good customs.

The Supreme Court REVERSED the ruling of the appellate court arguing the following:

1. Any act that restrains speech is bears the presumption of invalidity. 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.

2. The respondent Board x-rated petitioners TV series for "attacking" either religions, especially the
Catholic church. However, the so-called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held
dogmas and tenets of other religions.

In fine, 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.

3. The respondents cannot also rely on the ground "attacks against another religion" in x-rating the
religious program of petitioner. The ground "attack against another religion" was not among the
grounds stated in section 3 of PD No. 1986; it is merely added by the respondent Board in its Rules. This
rule is void for it runs smack against the hoary doctrine that administrative rules and regulations cannot
expand the letter and spirit of the law they seek to enforce.

Article 201 (2) (b) (3) of the Revised Penal Code should be invoked to justify the subsequent punishment
of a show which offends any religion. It cannot be utilized to justify prior censorship of speech.

4. In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents failed to apply the clear and present
danger rule. “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 ."
(American Bible Society v. City of Manila)
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.

RULING:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated March 24, 1995 is affirmed
insofar as it sustained the jurisdiction of the respondent MTRCB to review petitioner's TV program
entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo," and is REVERSED and set aside insofar as it sustained the action of the
respondent MTRCB x-rating petitioner's TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121. No costs

The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed since the respondent Board has failed to justify the
heavy burden of presumptive invalidity the nature of any act that restrains speech has. Also, the so-
called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions.
And that this basis is merely added by the respondent Board in its Rules, meaning, it was not among the
grounds stated in section 3 of PD No. 1986. Finally, the respondents failed to apply the clear and
present danger rule which the court comments that 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 the State has the right to prevent

MAJOR POINTS:

Petitioner contends that the term “television programs” should not include religious programs as it
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 court rejected the
petitioner’s submission while quoting the summation of Mr. Justice Isagani Cruz, a well-known
constitutionalist: (Religious Profession and Worship)

The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe and freedom
to act on one's beliefs. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought.
The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the
public welfare.

“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 State.”

The court concluded: Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. 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.

It is also opined by Mr. Justice Kapunan that ". . . the determination of the question as to whether or not
such vilification, exaggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected
speech or expression is a judicial function which cannot be arrogated by an administrative body such
as a Board of Censors." He submits that a "system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by
judges and not left to administrative agencies." The same submission is made by Mr. Justice Mendoza.

Our cultural ideals and core values of galang, pagbabahala, pananagutan, balikatan, malasakit, asal,
halaga, diwa, damdamin, dangal, kapwa, pakikitungo, hiya, delikadesa, awa, tiwala, maka-Diyos, maka-
tao, maka-buhay and so forth, define us as a people, as Filipinos.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:

PANGANIBAN, J., concurring

FIRST, I agree with the ponencia that "(f)reedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status by the
framers of our fundamental laws, past and present." SECOND, I believe that as an agency of the State
created to promote the general welfare, the MTRCB under P.D. 1986 has the basic initiatory authority
and power to - "approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portion from and/or prohibit… exhibition
and/or television broadcast".

PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting

I concur with the majority opinion insofar as it removes the ban against the showing of petitioner's TV
Program Series Nos. 115, 119 and 121. However, I disagree with that part of the majority opinion which
upholds the power of respondent Board to subject to prior restraint petitioner's religious television
programs. There can be no prior restraints on the exercise of free speech expression or religion unless
such exercise poses a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right and
even the duty to prevent. It is immeasurably preferable to experience such occasional abuses of
speech and expression than to arm a governmental administrative agency with the authority to censor
speech and expression.

MENDOZA, J., concurring:

I concur in the decision to allow the showing of certain video tapes of petitioner's program, "Ang Iglesia
Ni Cristo," and for this purpose to reverse the contrary ruling of the Court of Appeals. The general
principles of free speech and religion regrettably failed to apply to the law (P.D. No. 1986 and its
implementing rules) under which the Board has acted.

Censorship may be allowed only in a narrow class of cases involving pornography, excessive violence,
only courts can prohibit the
and danger to national security. Even in these cases,
showing of a film or the broadcast of a program
In Burstyn v. Wilson, it was held that expression by means of motion pictures -- and, it may be added, by
means of television broadcasts - is included in the free speech and free press guarantee of the
Constitution.

I hold §3(b) to be a valid exercise of the State's power to protect legitimate public interests.
While I think the Board may be granted the power to preview materials, it is only for the purpose of
enabling the Board to decide whether to seek their prohibition by the court in the interest of
safeguarding morality, good order and public safety, considering the pervasive influence of broadcast
media compared to that of the print media.

This Court should be willing to leave the valuation of that priceless commodity - expression, whether by
means of motion picture or television - to administrative agencies with only occasional review by the
courts.

The clear and present danger test simply cannot be applied. This is because a determination whether an
utterance has created a clear and present danger to public interests requires a factual record

For the foregoing reasons, I vote to declare §3(2) of P.D. No. 1986 unconstitutional and to reverse the
decision of the Court of Appeals, except in so far as it sustains the grant of power to the Board to
preview materials for showing or broadcast, consistent with my view that §3(b) is valid.

MELO, J., concurring and dissenting:

We recognize the role and the deep influence that religion plays in our community. No less than the
fundamental law of the land acknowledges the elevating influence of religion by imploring the aid of
almighty God to build a just and humane society. Any restriction that is to be placed upon this right
must be applied with greatest caution. Any prior restriction on the exercise of the freedom to profess
religious faith and the propagation thereof will unduly diminish that religion's authority to spread what
it believes to be the sacred truth.

VITUG, J., dissenting:

Like any other right, however, the exercise of religious belief is not without inherent and statutory
limitations. In order not to infringe constitutional principles, any restriction by the Board must, of
course, be for legitimate and valid reasons. I certainly do not think that prior censorship should
altogether be rejected just because sanctions can later be imposed.

KAPUNAN, J., concurring and dissenting:

I cannot agree with its opinion that respondent Board of Review for Motion pictures and Television (now
MTRCB) has the power to review petitioner's TV program "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo." It is, therefore, settled
that religious freedom is a fundamental right entitled to the highest priority and amplest protection
among human rights.

PROVISIONS:

PD No. 1986 in relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREAS, it is the obligation of the State to safeguard the morality of society, particularly the youth,
against the eroding influence of immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent
shows;
"Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. The penalty of
prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment
and fine, shall be imposed upon:

"1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;

Section 5, Article III of the Constitution

"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."