Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kalaw VS Katigbak PDF
Kalaw VS Katigbak PDF
*
No. L-69500. July 22, 1985.
________________
* EN BANC.
718
for libel, the Supreme Court of the Philippines already made clear
that freedom of the press consists in the right to print what one
chooses without any previous license.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
719
720
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
FERNANDO, C.J.:
________________
722
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
________________
723
8
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
8
tion.” There was an answer to the amended petition filed
on February 18, 1985. It was therein asserted that the
issue presented as to the previous deletions ordered by the
Board as well as the statutory provisions for review of films
and as to the requirement to submit the master negative
have been all rendered moot. It was also submitted that the
standard of the law for classifying films afford a practical
and determinative yardstick for the exercise of judgment.
For respondents, the question of the sufficiency of the
standards remains the only question at issue.
It would be unduly restrictive under the circumstances
to limit the issue to one of the sufficiency of standards to
guide respondent Board in the exercise of its power. Even if
such were the case, there is justification for an inquiry into
the controlling standard to warrant the classification of
“For Adults Only.” This is especially so, when obscenity is
the basis for any alleged invasion of the right to the
freedom of artistic and literary expression embraced in the
free speech and free press guarantees of the Constitution.
1. Motion pictures are important both as a medium for
the communication of ideas and the expression of the
artistic impulse. Their effects on the perception by our
people of issues and public officials or public figures as well
as the prevailing cultural traits is9 considerable. Nor as
pointed out in Burstyn v. Wilson is the “importance of
motion pictures as an organ of public opinion lessened by
the fact 10that they are designed to entertain as well as to
inform.” There is no clear dividing line between what
involves knowledge and what affords pleasure. If such a
distinction were sustained, there is a diminution of the
basic right to free
11
expression. Our recent decision in Reyes
v. Bagatsing cautions against such a move. Press
freedom, as stated in the opinion of the Court, “may be
identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully
any matter of public
________________
724
12
concern without censorship or punishment.” This is not to
say that such freedom, as is the freedom of speech,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
________________
12 Ibid, 560.
13 Ibid, 561.
14 14 Phil. 338. Cf. US v. Sotto, 38 Phil. 666 (1918).
15 L-32717, November 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 228.
16 Cf. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivans, 372 US 58 (1962); Organization
for Better Austria v. Keafe, 402 US 415 (1971).
725
________________
726
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
________________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
727
________________
25 Ibid.
26 Executive Order No. 876, Section 3(c) (1963).
27 Article XV, Section 9, par. (2), last sentence of the Constitution.
28 Kingsley v. Regents, 360 US 684, 695 (1959).
29 Lopez, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 65022, May 31, 1985.
728
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
30
Malcolm in Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, it is “an elementary,
a fundamental, and a universal role of construction,
applied when considering constitutional questions, that
when a law is susceptible of two constructions one of which
will maintain and the other31
destroy it, the courts will
always adopt the former.” As thus construed, there can be
no valid objection to the sufficiency of the controlling
standard and its conformity to what the Constitution
ordains.
9. This being a certiorari petition, the question before
the Court is whether or not there was a grave abuse of
discretion. That there was an abuse of discretion by
respondent Board is evident in the light of the difficulty
and travail undergone by petitioners before Kapit sa
Patalim was classified as “For Adults Only.” without any
deletion or cut. Moreover its perception of what constitutes
obscenity appears to be unduly restrictive. This Court
concludes then that there was an abuse of discretion.
Nonetheless, there are not enough votes to maintain that
such an abuse can be considered grave. Accordingly,
certiorari does not lie. This conclusion finds support in this
explanation of respondents in its Answer to the amended
petition: “The adult classification given the film serves as a
warning to theater operators and viewers that some
contents of Kapit are not fit for the young. Some of the
scenes in the picture were taken in a theater-club and a
good portion of the film shots concentrated on some women
erotically dancing naked, or at least nearly naked, on the
theater stage. Another scene on that stage depicted the
women kissing and caressing as lesbians. And toward the
end of the picture, there exists scenes of excessive violence
attending the battle between a group of robbers and the
police. The vulnerable and imitative32
in the young audience
will misunderstand these scenes.” Further: “Respondents
further stated in its answer that petitioner company has an
option to have the film reclassified to For-General-
Patronage if it would agree to remove the obscene
33
scenes
and pare down the violence in the film.” Petitioners,
however,
________________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
729
Petition dismissed.
________________
730
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
4/27/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 137
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171bbcf6f9adb179824003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14