FHM petition vs Manila’s antiobscenity law junked

Whether the publication by a men’s magazine of photos of nearly naked female celebrities and starlets should be banned for being obscene or upheld as part of freedom of speech was apparently too hot to handle for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by the publishers and editors of the now defunct FHM (For Him Magazine) to declare unconstitutional a Manila antiobscenity ordinance that was used against them in July 2008.

Voting 9-4, the Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7780, saying it cannot encroach on legislation.

It also said FHM’s petition was moot because the complaint had been dismissed by the Manila prosecutor’s office.

The high court also said the case did not involve free speech.

“To grant the petition would be to declare Ordinance No. 7780 (and by implication Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code) unconstitutional in a complete vacuum,” the court said in a ruling dated Sept. 24 but released only on Wednesday.

It even pointed out that the FHM publishers and editors did not present the magazine pages alleged to be obscene, “thus there would be no basis even for this court to rule on the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied to petitioners.”

FHM, which ceased publication in 2018, was sued by a group of pastors and preachers led by Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante on July 7, 2008 for circulating materials that were “clearly scandalous, obscene and pornographic.”

FHM was accused of violating the city’s antiobscenity law as well as provisions in the Revised Penal Code against grave scandal and obscene publications.

In 2013, the Manila’s City Prosecutor Office dismissed the complaints for violation of the city ordinance and for grave scandal.

But the FHM publishers and editors were charged in court with selling or printing obscene materials.

FHM petitioned the high court to strike down the ordinance for violating the constitutional guarantees to free speech and expression, and the right to due process and for offending privacy rights. —Dona Z. Pazzibugan INQ