Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 155282 January 17, 2005
MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION
BOARD (MTRCB), petitioner,
vs.
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION and LOREN
LEGARDA, respondents.
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

For our resolution is the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, filed by petitioner Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) against ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) and former Senator Loren
Legarda, respondents, assailing the (a) Decision dated November 18,
1997,1 and (b) Order dated August 26, 20022 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 77, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. Q-93-16052.

The facts are undisputed.

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN

aired "Prosti-tuition," an episode of the television (TV) program "The
Inside Story" produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted
female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for
their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student prostitutes, pimps,
customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine
Women’s University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the
students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode.

The showing of "The Inside Story" caused uproar in the PWU

community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the
PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers Association filed letter-
complaints3 with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the
episode besmirched the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment
of some of its female students.

Acting on the letter-complaints, the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a

formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging
among others, that respondents (1) did not submit "The Inside Story" to
petitioner for its review and (2) exhibited the same without its permission,
thus, violating Section 74 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 19865 and
Section 3,6 Chapter III and Section 7,7 Chapter IV of the MTRCB Rules
and Regulations.8

In their answer,9 respondents explained that the "The Inside Story" is a

"public affairs program, news documentary and socio-political editorial,"
the airing of which is protected by the constitutional provision on
freedom of expression and of the press. Accordingly, petitioner has no
power, authority and jurisdiction to impose any form of prior restraint
upon respondents.

On February 5, 1993, after hearing and submission of the parties’

memoranda, the MTRCB Investigating Committee rendered a Decision,
the decretal portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, the aforementioned premises, the respondents are

ordered to pay the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00)
for non-submission of the program, subject of this case for review and
approval of the MTRCB.

Heretofore, all subsequent programs of the ‘The Inside Story’ and all
other programs of the ABS-CBN Channel 2 of the same category shall be
submitted to the Board of Review and Approval before showing;
otherwise the Board will act accordingly."101awphi1.nét

On appeal, the Office of Atty. Henrietta S. Mendez, Chairman of the

MTRCB, issued a Decision dated March 12, 1993 affirming the above
ruling of its Investigating Committee.11 Respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution dated April 14, 1993.12

Respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77, Quezon City. It seeks to: (1)
declare as unconstitutional Sections 3(b),13 3(c),14 3(d),15 4,16 7,17 and
1118 of P. D. No. 1986 and Sections 3,19 7,20 and 2821 (a) of the
MTRCB Rules and Regulations;22 (2) (in the alternative) exclude the
"The Inside Story" from the coverage of the above cited provisions; and
(3) annul and set aside the MTRCB Decision dated March 12, 1993 and
Resolution dated April 14, 1993. Respondents averred that the above-
cited provisions constitute "prior restraint" on respondents’ exercise of
freedom of expression and of the press, and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the above cited provisions do not apply to the "The Inside
Story" because it falls under the category of "public affairs program,
news documentary, or socio-political editorials" governed by standards
similar to those governing newspapers.
On November 18, 1997, the RTC rendered a Decision23 in favor of
respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby

rendered:

1. ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE the assailed Decision and

Resolution of MTRCB dated March 12, 1993;

2. DECLARING AND DECREEING that Sections 3 (b), (c), and (d), 4,

7, and 11 of P.D. No. 1986 and Sections 3, 7, 28 (a) of its Implementing
Rules do not cover the TV Program "The Inside Story" and other similar
programs, they being public affairs programs which can be equated to
newspapers; and

3. MAKING PERMANENT the Injunction against Respondents or all

persons acting in their behalf.

SO ORDERED."

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.24

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner MTRCB through the Solicitor General, contends inter alia:

first, all television programs, including "public affairs programs, news
documentaries, or socio-political editorials," are subject to petitioner’s
power of review under Section 3 (b) of P.D. No. 1986 and pursuant to this
Court’s ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals ;25 second,
television programs are more accessible to the public than newspapers,
thus, the liberal regulation of the latter cannot apply to the former; third,
petitioner’s power to review television programs under Section 3(b) of P.
D. No. 1986 does not amount to "prior restraint;" and fourth, Section 3(b)
of P. D. No. 1986 does not violate respondents’ constitutional freedom of
expression and of the press.

Respondents take the opposite stance.

The issue for our resolution is whether the MTRCB has the power or
authority to review the "The Inside Story" prior to its exhibition or
broadcast by television.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The present controversy brings into focus the provisions of Section 3 of P.
D. No. 1986, partly reproduced as follows:

"SEC. 3. Powers and Functions. – The BOARD shall have the following
functions, powers and duties:

xxxxxx

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.1a\^/phi1.net

c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions 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 or 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:

xxx

d) To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for the

importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease,
exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television
programs and publicity materials, to the end and that no such pictures,
programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be
objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be imported,
exported, produced, copied, reproduced, distributed, sold, leased,
exhibited and/or broadcast by television;

x x x x x x."

Vis-a-vis the foregoing provisions, our task is to decide whether or not

petitioner has the power to review the television program "The Inside
Story." The task is not Herculean because it merely resurrects this Court
En Banc’s ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals.26 There, the
Iglesia ni Cristo sought exception from petitioner’s review power
contending that the term "television programs" under Sec. 3 (b) does not
include "religious programs" which are protected under Section 5, Article
III of the Constitution.27 This Court, through Justice Reynato Puno,
categorically ruled that P.D. No. 1986 gives petitioner "the power to
screen, review and examine "all television programs," emphasizing the
phrase "all television programs," thus:

"The law gives the Board the power to screen, review and examine all
‘television programs.’ By the clear terms of the law, the Board has the
power to ‘approve, delete x x x and/or prohibit the x x x exhibition and/or
television broadcast of x x x television programs x x x.’ The law also
directs the Board to apply ‘contemporary Filipino cultural values as
standard’ to determine those which 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.’"

Settled is the rule in statutory construction that where the law does not
make any exception, courts may not except something therefrom, unless
there is compelling reason apparent in the law to justify it.28 Ubi lex non
distinguit nec distinguere debemos. Thus, when the law says "all
television programs," the word "all" covers all television programs,
whether religious, public affairs, news documentary, etc.29 The principle
assumes that the legislative body made no qualification in the use of
general word or expression.30

It then follows that since "The Inside Story" is a television program, it is

within the jurisdiction of the MTRCB over which it has power of review.

Here, respondents sought exemption from the coverage of the term

"television programs" on the ground that the "The Inside Story" is a
"public affairs program, news documentary and socio-political editorial"
protected under Section 4,31 Article III of the Constitution. Albeit,
respondent’s basis is not freedom of religion, as in Iglesia ni Cristo,32 but
freedom of expression and of the press, the ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo
applies squarely to the instant issue. It is significant to note that in Iglesia
ni Cristo, this Court declared that freedom of religion has been accorded a
preferred status by the framers of our fundamental laws, past and present,
"designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow
each man to believe as his conscience directs x x x." Yet despite the fact
that freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status, still this
Court, did not exempt the Iglesia ni Cristo’s religious program from
petitioner’s review power.

Respondents claim that the showing of "The Inside Story" is protected by

the constitutional provision on freedom of speech and of the press.
However, there has been no declaration at all by the framers of the
Constitution that freedom of expression and of the press has a preferred
status.

If this Court, in Iglesia ni Cristo, did not exempt religious programs from
the jurisdiction and review power of petitioner MTRCB, with more
reason, there is no justification to exempt therefrom "The Inside Story"
which, according to respondents, is protected by the constitutional
provision on freedom of expression and of the press, a freedom bearing
no preferred status.

The only exceptions from the MTRCB’s power of review are those
expressly mentioned in Section 7 of P. D. No. 1986, such as (1) television
programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its
departments and agencies, and (2) newsreels. Thus:

"SEC. 7. Unauthorized showing or exhibition. – It shall be unlawful for

any person or entity to exhibit or cause to be exhibited in any
moviehouse, theatre, or public place or by television within the
Philippines any motion picture, television program or publicity material,
including trailers, and stills for lobby displays in connection with motion
pictures, not duly authorized by the owner or his assignee and passed by
the BOARD; or to print or cause to be printed on any motion picture to be
exhibited in any theater or public place or by television a label or notice
showing the same to have been officially passed by the BOARD when the
same has not been previously authorized, except motion pictures,
television programs or publicity material imprinted or exhibited by the
Philippine Government and/or its departments and agencies, and
newsreels."

Still in a desperate attempt to be exempted, respondents contend that the

"The Inside Story" falls under the category of newsreels.

Their contention is unpersuasive.

P. D. No. 1986 does not define "newsreels." Webster’s dictionary defines

newsreels as short motion picture films portraying or dealing with current
events.33 A glance at actual samples of newsreels shows that they are
mostly reenactments of events that had already happened. Some concrete
examples are those of Dziga Vertov’s Russian Kino-Pravda newsreel
series (Kino-Pravda means literally "film-truth," a term that was later
translated literally into the French cinema verite) and Frank Capra’s Why
We Fight series.34 Apparently, newsreels are straight presentation of
events. They are depiction of "actualities." Correspondingly, the MTRCB
Rules and Regulations35 implementing P. D. No. 1986 define newsreels
as "straight news reporting, as distinguished from news analyses,
commentaries and opinions. Talk shows on a given issue are not
considered newsreels."36 Clearly, the "The Inside Story" cannot be
considered a newsreel. It is more of a public affairs program which is
described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television
news and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of
opinions.37 Certainly, such kind of program is within petitioner’s review
power.

It bears stressing that the sole issue here is whether petitioner MTRCB
has authority to review "The Inside Story." Clearly, we are not called
upon to determine whether petitioner violated Section 4, Article III (Bill
of Rights) of the Constitution providing that no law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of oppression or the press. Petitioner did
not disapprove or ban the showing of the program. Neither did it cancel
respondents’ permit. Respondents were merely penalized for their failure
to submit to petitioner "The Inside Story" for its review and approval.
Therefore, we need not resolve whether certain provisions of P. D. No.
1986 and the MTRCB Rules and Regulations specified by respondents
contravene the Constitution.

Consequently, we cannot sustain the RTC’s ruling that Sections 3 (c) (d),
4, 7 and 11 of P. D. No. 1986 and Sections 3, 7 and 28 (a) of the MTRCB
Rules and Regulations are unconstitutional. It is settled that no question
involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act
may be heard and decided by the court unless there is compliance with
the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: (1) that the question must
be raised by the proper party; (2) that there must be an actual case or
controversy; (3) that the question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and, (4) that the decision on the constitutional or legal
question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.38

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.l^vvphi1.net The

assailed RTC Decision dated November 18, 1997 and Order dated August
26, 2002 are hereby REVERSED. The Decision dated March 12, 1993 of
petitioner MTRCB is AFFIRMED. Costs against respondents.

SO ORDERED.