SC refuses to nullify Manila’s anti-obscenity ordinance
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has refused to strike down as unconstitutional Manila’s anti-obscenity ordinance.
In a 24-page decision dated Sept. 24, 2019 but made public Jan. 22, 2020, the high court said the petition is already moot and academic given that the complaint for violation of the city ordinance has been dismissed by the Manila prosecutors office.
Men’s magazine FHM went to the Supreme Court to stop the preliminary investigation being conducted by the Manila Prosecutors stemming from the complaint filed by pastors and preachers of Bible Baptist Churches in Metro Manila.
The complaint was for violating Ordinance No. 7780 or Manila’s Anti-Obscenity ordinance, Articles 200 (grave scandal) and 201 (immoral doctrines, obscene publications) of the Revised Penal Code. A complaint for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code has been filed in court but dismissed the complaints for violation of the ordinance and Article 200.
READ: Playboy, FHM’s Manila editors, tabloids sued over ‘obscene publications’
“In light of the dismissal with prejudice of all criminal charges against petitioners, this case has clearly been rendered moot and academic,” the high court said.
It pointed out that while there may be the risk that complaints may be filed for violation of the ordinance, “there is no showing that the pastors and preachers who initiated the complaint here filed, or have threatened to file new charges against petitioners [FHM] over new materials published.”
Even assuming that the case has not been mooted, the high court said petitioners failed to provide proof to warrant a ruling in their favor.
Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, one of the justices who dissented from the majority, said the ordinance must be struck down for being overbroad.
She said the ordinance has the chilling effect “otherwise protected forms of free speech because of the impending threat of them being tagged under Ordinance 7780 as obscene.”
But the majority said facial challenge for being “overbreadth” is not possible because the “overbreadth doctrine finds special and limited application only to free speech cases.”
“The present petition does not involve a free speech case; it stemmed, rather from an obscenity prosecution,” the high court added.
Another dissenter, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, said the language of the ordinance is “so broad and vague that it easily allows repeated prosecution, chilling both creative and political expression.”
He said the Ordinance “is a feeble attempt to legislate morality. It prevents adults, who have complete autonomy over their morals and choices, from pursuing what may be their own personal interests.”
Concurring with the majority are Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, Associate Justices Benjamin Caguioa, Andres Reyes Jr, Jose Reyes Jr, Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Inting, and Rodil Zalameda.
Then, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Rosmari Carandang joined the dissent.
