MEDIA LAW: Iglesia ni Cristo v

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

Iglesia ni Cristo v CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)

F: This is a petition for review on the decision of the CA affirming action of respondent Board of Review For Moving Pictures
and Television that x-rated the TV Program "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" classifying it not for public viewing on grounds that they
offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law. Respondent contends the Board
acted without jurisdiction and in grave abuse of discretion by requiring them to submit VTR tapes and x-rating them and
suppression of freedom of expression. Trial court rendered judgment ordering the Board to give petitioner the permit for
their TV program while ordering petitioners to refrain from attacking and offending other religious sectors from their
program. In their motion for reconsideration the petitioner prays for the deletion of the order of the court to make them
subject to the requirement of submitting the VTR tapes of their programs for review prior to showing on television. Such
motion was granted. Respondent board appealed before the CA which reversed the decision of the lower court affirming the
jurisdiction and power of the board to review the TV program. In their petition for review on certiorari, petitioner assails the
jurisdiction of the Board over reviewing of their TV program and its grave abuse of discretion of its power to review if they
are indeed vested with such.

Issue: whether or not the Board has jurisdiction over the case at bar and whether or not it has acted with grave abuse of
discretion.

Held: The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Board to review TV programs by virtue of the powers vested upon it by PD
1986. On the account of suppression of religious freedom, the court ruled that any act that restrains speech is accompanied
with presumption of invalidity. The burden lies upon the Board to overthrow this presumption. The decision of the lower
court is a suppression of the petitioners freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. Respondent board cannot censor
the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions. It is only where it is unavoidably
necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of
religious freedom may be justified. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially
the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified
by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. Thus the court affirmed the jurisdiction of
the Board to review the petitioners TV program while it reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court that
sustained the act of respondent in x-rating the TV program of the petitioner.

2 fold aspects of religious profession and worship namely:

1. Freedom to believe (absolute)

1. Freedom to act on ones belief where an individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions affecting the public, this
freedom to do so becomes subject to the regulation authority of the state.