III. P.D. No. 1986: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?
Article III Section 4 of the Bill of Rights:
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
MTRCB has been a tool of the government in the curtailment of the right to freedom of expression for years. The violation of the right to freedom of expression in the present MTRCB charter can be traced back in history even before the declaration of Martial Law in 1972. o Board of Censors for Motion Pictures (BCMP) - R.A. No. 3060, Approved June 17, 1961 o Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMPT) - E.O. No. 876, February 18, 1983
“WHEREAS, a regulatory body must not only function in reviewing and censoring films or television programs brought before it but must also initiate the plans and cooperate with the industry to improve, upgrade and make viable the industry as one source of fueling the national economy…”(P.D. No. 1986)
MTRCB’s main function is to help parents in guiding their children’s viewing of motion pictures and television programs—not censoring programs that do not favor the state’s interests!
Who decides on what/when to CENSOR?
Sec. 3 of P.D. No. 1986: Powers and Functions
“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 wrong or crime…”
Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 1986: Decision
“The decision of the BOARD either approving or disapproving for exhibition in the Philippines a motion picture, television program, still and other pictorial advertisement submitted to it for examination and review must be rendered within a period of ten (10) days which shall be counted from the date of receipt by the BOARD of an application for the purpose, together with motion picture, television program, still or other pictorial advertisement to be reviewed.”
Pita v. Court of Appeals (178 SCRA 162, 1989)
Plaintiff: Leo Pita, publisher and co-editor of “Pinoy Playboy”
Filed case of injunction against Manila Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila
FACTS: “Pursuant to the Anti-Smut Campaign of Mayor Ramon Bagatsing, policemen seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic, and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public. Among the publications seized and later burned was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. After his injunctive relief was dismissed by the RTC and his appeal rejected by CA, he seeks review with SC, invoking the guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure1.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of the alleged obscene/indecent materials was illegal and violated the freedom of expression of the petitioner
HELD: NO VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION… “the pictures here in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes, the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection2.”
THE SEIZURE WAS ILLEGAL… “It is basic that searches and seizure may be done only through a judicial warrant…3”
THE POINT HERE THAT…
“They must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are "obscene" and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action. The judge must determine WON the same are indeed "obscene": the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge's sound discretion. If probable cause exists, a search warrant will issue.4”
MTRCB has to reason out and give proofs of clear and present danger of a substantive evil in a court to justify why should a particular movie or T.V. program be censored… a JUDGE should DECIDE if the evidences given by the MTRCB are valid enough to censor a motion picture or a T.V. program
1 Law and Politics. Pita v. CA Case Digest. Retrieved September 16, 2012, from http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767279-case-digest-pita-ca-178/. 2 Cofferette.blogspot. Pita vs. Court of Appeals. Retrieved Sepetember 16, 2012, from http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/pita-vs-court-of-appeals-178-scra-362_08.html. 3 Op.cit. 4Ibid IV. The Political Economy of MTRCB’s Power to Rate, Classify, and Censor Movies and Television Programs a. MTRCB’s Identity to the Public
MISSION
To the Public
- “The MTRCB, as a regulatory Board, aims to afford the public exemplary exhibitions of movie and television with the purpose of encouraging production of globally-competitive movies/exhibitions, which should be both entertaining and artistic, in order to raise the standard of art for the general public.”
To the Industry
-The MTRCB, as a partner in bringing about progress at the Movie and Television Industry, strives to provide the industry opportunities for improvement by implementing regulations and guidelines acceptable to parties concerned thereby maintaining a wholesome atmosphere of partnership.
To its Workplace
-The MTRCB, as an employer/government agency, seeks to further uplift the standard of service of its employees by providing continuous support for the enhancement of their knowledge and development of their skills through seminars, workshops, scholarships and reward systems as provided by law. Such service must be coupled with dedication and integrity with the workforce inspired by the spirit of “belongingness” in the workplace.
VISION
The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board envisions to be of service to the Filipino public as a Movie and Television regulatory board, not only confined in review and classification but as a prime catalyst of change by helping the Movie and Television industry become globally competitive. The agency recognizes TV and Movie Media as indispensable tools for moral recovery and nation-building.
GOALS Prompt, responsive and committed service-oriented workforce; Maximize potential as catalyst for economic progress and professional growth; Provide access through the world-wide web; Be a vehicle for quality entertainment for a well-oriented and more educated citizenry.
c. BOARD MEMBERS
Movie and Entertainment Industry Robert “Bobby” Andrews- Actor Marta Ines Dayrit-Film editor Mario A. Hernando-film and t.v. critic Liezl S. Martinez-former actress, wife of actor-filmmaker Albert Martinez, and daughter of Amalia Fuentes Leah L. Navarro- jukebox singer in 70’s and 80’s-turned-activist Movie and Entertainment Industry Milo M. Sogueco – Indie Film director helmed the 2009 Cinemalaya entry, “Sanglaan” Gladys Reyes-Sommereux- Actress Benedicto H. Tarnat, Sr.- Post-production person Manuel Buising- Screenplay writer Clergy: Fr. Nicasio D. Cruz Politics: Teresita B. Villarama- one of the nominees in BUHAY (Buhaya Hayaang Yumabong) Patrylist Teresita R. Daza- wife of Deputy Speaker Raul A. Daza, 1st District Northern Samar Jacqueline Suzanne M. Aquino-Gavino-daughter of Makati Rep. Agapito "Butz" Aquino News/print media: Catherine Babao-Guerroro- parenting columnist Marra PL. Lanot- poet/ essayist/ journalist Alfred A. Yuson- poet/ writer/ journalist Carmensita A. Guerrero- journalist/ author/ historian
Academe: Ma. Lourdes DR. Bautista- Professor Emeritus(Department of English and Applied Linguistics) atDe LaSalle University-Manila Lawyers: Atty. Eugenio H. Villareal Atty. Jose Antonio K. Veloso Atty. Eric Henry Joseph F. Mallonga Atty. Noel R. Del Prado Atty. Gabriela Roldan-Concepcion Private Sector: Francia C. Conrado Jaime Allan A. Bengzon Patronicia Datu Binungcal Ma. Carmen Syquia-Musngi Cecilia Nubla Jay C. Revestir Jose E. Romero, IV d. Standards in Rating Movies and Television Programs e. Cost of MTRCB Reviews
Chapter VIII Sec. 3B of Presidential Decree No. 1986 stipulates that “because these television programs shall be regularly monitored for spot-checking, fees for each airing will remain in place.”
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 10-05
Review Fees (running-time based)
1. Up to fifteen (15) minutes - Php1,000.00
2. More than fifteen (15) minutes to - Php1,200.00
one (1) hour
3. More than one (1) hour to three (3) - Php1,500.00
hours
4. Every hour exceeding the three (3) - Php1,000.00
Hours or a fraction of the hour
Annual Registration Fee a) for the year 2005 - Php1,750.00 b) for the year 2006 and thereafter - Php3,500.00
Registration Surcharge/Penalty
(for registration after December 31 for Permit for following year) - 100%
(took effect last August 15, 2005)
V. MTRCB as Government’s Mechanism to Curtail the Right to Freedom of Expression as Protected by the 1987 Constitution