http://tobicasdigest2.blogspot.com/2014/06/gr-no-l-69500-july-22-1985-jose-antonio.

html

Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak

G.R. No. L-69500 July 22, 1985

FERNANDO, C.J.

Doctrines:

1. Censorship partakes the nature of a prior restraint and may only be applied upon showing of clear
and present danger. The test to be applied is whether the average person, applying the contemporary
community standard finds the material, taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.

2. A less liberal approach is observed when it comes to television shows because unlike a motion
picture, a television show reaches every home where there is a set- it is more accessible to the public
and to the children in general.

FACTS

The present case is a petition for Certiorari assailing the classification made by the Board of
Review for Motion Pictures and Television.

The motion picture in question “Kapit sa Patalim” was classified for “Adults Only” by the
respondent Board with initial cuts and deletions. The Board then claimed that if they want to change the
classification of the said movie, the petitioners need to delete and change some scenes. Aggrieved, the
petitioner, who is the publisher of the said movie, assailed such decision. However, the respondent
claimed that issue has now become moot because they a permit to exhibit without cuts and deletions
was already issued. Still not satisfied with this, the petitioner filed an amended petition now questioning
the classification as “For Adults Only.” Petitioner now contends that such classification is an
impermissible restraint on the artistic freedom and expression protected by the right to free speech and
of the press.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the classification made by the Board is an impermissible restraint on artistic expression- YES

The Court reiterated in this case that importance of motion pictures as a medium of
communication of ideas and expression of artistic impulse. It is also considered an organ of public
opinion that must be afforded protection unless there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil.
However, obscene materials do not enjoy the same protection. The test that should be followed in
determining what is obscene should be whether the average person, applying the contemporary
community standards, finds the works taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. It is because the
portrayal of sex is not immediately equal to obscenity and is not a sufficient reason to deny the
material constitutional protection.

There is also an applicable law, EO 376, which used the Filipino cultural values as the standard.
It is a well-settled rule that when a law is susceptible of two interpretations, the Court should adopt the
one favoring validity. As thus construed, there can be no valid objection to the sufficiency of the
controlling standard and its conformity to what the Constitution ordains.

2. W/N the Board has committed grave abuse of discretion

It was also held by the Court that the Board has committed abuse of discretion because of the
difficult undergone by the petitioners before the movie was classified as “For Adults Only” without any
cuts and deletions. Moreover, the Board’s perception of what is obscene is too restrictive for the
Court. Albeit this, there was no enough votes to consider the abuse as grave. The adult classification
would therefore serve as a warning that some contents of the movie are not fit for the young.

HELD:

WHEREFORE, this Court, in the light of the principles of law enunciated in the opinion,
DISMISSES this petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling
that there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "ForAdults-Only.

IMPORTANT KEYPOINTS:

MILLER TEST WAS USED

The main objection was the classification of the film as "For Adults Only."

Still, the test, to repeat, to determine whether freedom of expression may be limited is the clear and
present danger of an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent.

Roth as precedence was superseded by The Hicklin test: The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect
of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass material legitimately
treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech
and press.

whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of
the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. On the other hand, the substituted standard
provides safeguards adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity.

United States v. Bustos: While recognizing the principle that libel is beyond the pale of constitutional
protection, it left no doubt that in determining what constitutes such an offense, a court should ever be
mindful that no violation of the right to freedom of expression is allowable.

Executive Order No. 876, reference was made to respondent Board "applying contemporary Filipino
cultural values” as standard

On the question of obscenity, therefore, and in the light of the facts of this case, such standard set forth
in Executive Order No. 878 is to be construed in such a fashion to avoid any taint of unconstitutionality

Malcolm in Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad: it is "an elementary, a fundamental, and a universal role of
construction, applied when considering constitutional questions, that when a law is susceptible of two
constructions' one of which will maintain and the other destroy it, the courts will always adopt the
former. As thus construed, there can be no valid objection to the sufficiency of the controlling standard
and its conformity to what the Constitution ordains.

The State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young.