PITA v.

CA
G.R. No. 80806
October 5, 1989

Facts:

"Pinoy Playboy" magazines, co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita, were among the publications seized
and later burned by MMDA for being obscene, pornographic and indecent.

Plaintiff argued that the magazine is a decent, artistic, and educational magazine that is not per
se obscene, and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of
speech and of the press. Plaintiff filed a case for injunction seeking to enjoin defendants and
their agents from confiscating plaintiff's magazines or from preventing the sale or circulation
thereof.

In addition, the plaintiff filed an urgent motion to prevent the seizure, confiscation, and burning
of the plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" magazines while the petition is heard. The Court allowed the
brief limiting request. When the TRO expired, the case was set for trial. The RTC deemed the
seizure legal and affirmed by CA.

Issue:
WON the seizure is violative of the freedom of expression of the petitioner

Held:
No. The state has the right to protect society from pornographic literature that is
offensive to public morals, and we have laws that punish the author, publishers, and sellers of
obscene publications. As a result, freedom of the press is not without restrictions.

However, it is more difficult to prove than to argue that the images in question are not
protected by the Constitution if they were used for commercial purposes rather than art.
"Whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend on the circumstances of the case, and
the question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate sense of the community
reached by it," in the end.
In this instance, the government authorities lacked the necessary evidence to warrant a
ban and the confiscation of the literature. First, they lacked a valid court order. The authorities
must demonstrate to the court that the materials sought to be seized are degrading and present
a clear and present threat of evil substantial enough to justify State intervention and action; The
judge must decide if the same are actually obscene. The judge's sound discretion and case-by-
case approach will determine how to resolve the issue.