[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
96 views2 pages

GMA Network vs. MTRCB Case Summary

The petitioner aired a film without securing the required permit from the MTRCB as required by law. The MTRCB issued an order suspending the petitioner for this violation. The petitioner challenged the MTRCB's authority to review films prior to broadcast. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the MTRCB has the power to review films prior to broadcast under the law, and (2) the memorandum circular imposing the penalty on the petitioner was unenforceable because it was not properly registered, so the penalty could not be imposed.

Uploaded by

Ruth Dulatas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views2 pages

GMA Network vs. MTRCB Case Summary

The petitioner aired a film without securing the required permit from the MTRCB as required by law. The MTRCB issued an order suspending the petitioner for this violation. The petitioner challenged the MTRCB's authority to review films prior to broadcast. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the MTRCB has the power to review films prior to broadcast under the law, and (2) the memorandum circular imposing the penalty on the petitioner was unenforceable because it was not properly registered, so the penalty could not be imposed.

Uploaded by

Ruth Dulatas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

7/21/2019 Gma Network v.

Mtrcb

GMA Network v. MTRCB


G.R. No. 148579
February 5, 2007
ub!"#at"o$ o% A&'"$"(trat"ve )((ua$#e(

FACT*+ Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the UHF television station, EM
hannel !". #n $an%ar& ", !''', respondent M()* iss%ed an order o+ s%spension against
 petitioner +or airing "Muro Ami: The Making"  witho%t +irst sec%ring a permit +rom it as provided
in ection " o+ P- /01. A penalt& o+ s%spension was imposed 2ased on Memorand%m irc%lar 
/03" +or showing the +ilm witho%t the re4%ired permit +rom M()*.
Petitioner complied with the s%spension and   it also +iled a letter3protest which was
merel& 5noted5 2& the M()* there2&, in e++ect, den&ing 2oth the motion +or reconsideration
and letter3protest. (he& +iled with the A which a++irmed the M()*6s s%spension order.

)**-+

.  Making" 
7hether  prior
the M()* has the
to its 2roadcast 2&power or a%thorit& to review the show "Muro Ami: The
television.
!. 7hether Memorand%m irc%lar No. /03" was en+orcea2le and 2inding on petitioner 
8Admin MAIN IUE9.

-/+
. :es.
ection ; o+ P- /01 empowers the M()* to screen, review and e<amine all  motion
 pict%res, television programs incl%ding p%2licit& materials. (his power o+ review is highlighted
in its )%les and )eg%lation %nder ec. ".
(he only e<emptions +rom the M()*6s power o+ review are those e<pressl& mentioned

in ection ", s%ch as=


89 (elevision programs imprinted or e<hi2ited 2& the Philippine Government and>or 
departments and agencies, and
8!9 Newsreels.
(h%s "Muro Ami: The Making" is within the power o+ M()* given that it is not one o+ 
the e<emptions. Additionall&, even tho%gh petitioner insists that "Muro Ami: The Making" is
a public affairs program, this o%rt has alread& r%led that a p%2lic a++airs program 33 descri2ed as
a variet& o+ news treatment? a cross 2etween p%re television news and news3related
commentaries, anal&sis and>or e<change o+ opinions 33 is within the M()*6s power o+ review.
!. No.
(he Administrative ode o+ /0", partic%larl& ection ;, re4%ires that each agenc& to +ile
with the #++ice o+ the National Administrative )egister 8#NA)9 o+ the Universit& o+ the
Philippines @aw enter three certi+ied copies o+ ever& r%le adopted 2& it. Administrative
iss%ances which are not p%2lished or +iled with the #NA) are ine++ective and ma& not 2e

1 SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR REVIEW. -- No motion picture, tee!i"ion pro#r$m or re$te%


pu&icit' m$teri$ "($ &e importe%, e)porte%, pro%uce%, copie%, %i"tri&ute%, "o%, e$"e%, e)(i&ite% or
&ro$%c$"te% &' tee!i"ion *it(out prior permit i""ue% &' t(e +OR $ter re!ie* o t(e motion picture,
tee!i"ion pro#r$m or pu&icit' m$teri$

Prepared 2&= $%an Paolo P. *aadera 

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gma-network-v-mtrcb 1/2
7/21/2019 Gma Network v. Mtrcb

en+orced. Memorand%m irc%lar No. /03" has not 2een registered with the #NA) as o+ 
$an%ar& !", !'''. Hence, it is th%s %nen+orcea2le and cannot 2e meted o%t to petitioner as
 p%nishment.

Prepared 2&= $%an Paolo P. *aadera !

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gma-network-v-mtrcb 2/2

You might also like