IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996

Petitioner: Iglesia ni Cristo
Respondent: The Honorable Court of Appeals, Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television,
and Honorable Henrietta S. Mendoza

FACTS:
Petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo has a TV Program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo”, which communicates the religious group’s beliefs, doctrines, and practices
oftentimes in comparison with other religions. In 1992, several pre-taped episodes (Series Nos. 116, 119, 121, and 128) of the show were rated
“X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). This was based on the
ground that the episodes “offended and constituted an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner
INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its “attacks” against contrary religious beliefs. 

Petitioner INC then questioned the actions of the respondent Board. First, it appealed to the Office of the President the classification of its TV
Series No. 128 which allowed it through a letter of former Executive Secretary Edelmiro A. Amante, Sr., addressed for Henrietta S. Mendez
reversing the decision of the respondent Board. According to the letter, the episode is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech
and expression, and no indication that the episode poses any clear and present danger.

Petitioner also filed against the respondent Board with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), as it alleged that the respondent Board
acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in requiring the INC to submit the VTR tapes of its TV program and in its subsequent
x-rating classification. Petitioner contended that religious programs like theirs should not be under the jurisdiction of the respondent Board as
this would contravene the Constitutional provision of the free exercise of religion. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner.

- The Board responded by invoking its power under PD No. 19861 in relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner
INC insists on the literal translation of the bible and says that our (Catholic) veneration of the Virgin Mary is not to be condoned
because nowhere it is found in the bible. The Board contended that it outrages Catholic and Protestant beliefs.

However, on appeal by the respondent Board, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision. The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent
Board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with grave abuse of
discretion when it denied a permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials
constitute an attack against another religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary to law and contrary to good customs.”
Dissatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner INC appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
(1)  Does respondent Board have the power to review petitioner’s TV program?

(2)  Assuming it has the power, did respondent Board gravely abuse its discretion when it prohibited the airing of petitioner’s religious
program?

RULING:

(1) YES, respondent Board has the power to review petitioner’s TV program.

- According to PD No 1986 Section 3:

(b) The board can screen, review, and examine all motion pictures and to

(c) approve, delete objectionable portions from and or prohibit the distribution of television programs. It also directs the board to
apply contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard to determine those which are objectionable for being “immoral, indecent,
contrary to law and or good customs.

Petitioner contends that the term “television program” [in Sec. 3 of PD No. 1986 that the respondent Board has the power to review and
classify] should not include religious programs like “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” as this would contradict Section 5, Article III of the Constitution, which
guarantees “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.”

The Court, however, rejected the petitioner’s postulate. The aforementioned freedom is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not
freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma. The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring
about clear and present danger of some substantive evil that the State is duty-bound to prevent (i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding
interest of public health, public moral, or public welfare). Since the TV program can be publicly viewed at large, it may create war between the
followers of INC and other religious sects, whose criticisms are directed. (Also considering the country’s warring religious beliefs and existing
fanaticism, and the fact that Television is a medium that reaches the eyes and ears of children). Hence, the program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo”
should be reviewed.
 - According to Mr. Justic Isagani Cruz, the person has the freedom to believe as he pleases without proof however if he
externalizes his beliefs in a way that the public is affected, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the state.

(2) YES, respondent Board gravely abuse its discretion when it prohibited the airing of petitioner’s religious program.
- an error in judgment or unreasonable ruling by the CA

a. Any act that restrains speech is accompanied by the presumption of invalidity. It is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow
this presumption. If it fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be struck down. It failed in the case at bar.

b. The evidence shows that the respondent Board x-rated the petitioner’s TV series for “attacking” either religions, especially the Catholic
Church. An examination of the evidence will show that the so-called “attacks” are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas
and tenets of other religions.

- The videotapes were not viewed by the respondent court as they were not presented as evidence. Yet they were considered by
the respondent court as indecent, contrary to law and good customs, and hence, can be prohibited from public viewing under
section 3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise
of religion.
- The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by the petitioner, but that gives it no excuse to prohibit
such criticisms however unclean they may be. Under our Constitution, it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by
protecting it against an attack by another religion. Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among
their followers, especially the fanatics, the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning towards
any religion. Hence, respondent Board cannot censor the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other
religions, even if said religion happens to be the largest Church in our country.

(The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas.)

- Section 3 of PD No. 1986 reveals that it is not among the grounds to justify an order prohibiting the broadcast of petitioner's
television program. The ground "attack against another religion" was merely added by the respondent Board in its Rules.
- The Revised Penal Code punishes anyone who exhibits "shows which offend any race or religion."  But in the case, it is plain that
the word "attack" is not synonymous with the word "offend. Furthermore, RPC should be invoked to justify the subsequent
punishment of a show which offends any religion. It cannot be utilized to justify prior censorship of speech.

c. In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents failed to apply the clear and present danger rule.

- In American Bible Society v. City of Manila, this Court held: “The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right can be
justified like other restraints on freedom of expression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive
evil which the State has the right to prevent.”
- In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we further ruled that “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,
and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.”
- The records show that the decision of the respondent Board, affirmed by the respondent appellate court, is completely bereft of
findings of facts to justify the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute impermissible attacks against another religion.
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 which has taken the life of a reality already on ground. Thus, the court
affirmed the jurisdiction of the Board to review the petitioner’s 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.
-

CONCLUSION

The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the CA insofar as the CA sustained the action of the respondent Board’s X-rating petitioner’s TV Program
Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121. It also voted 10-4 to AFFIRM the CA insofar as the CA it sustained the jurisdiction of the respondent MTRCB to
review petitioner’s TV program entitled “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo”.

EXTRAS
- 2 fold aspects of religious profession and worship namely:
1. Freedom to believe (absolute)
2. Freedom to act on one’s 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.

It is inappropriate to apply the clear and present danger test to the case at bar because the issue involves the content of speech and not the time, place
or manner of speech. Allegedly, unless the speech is first allowed, its impact cannot be measured, and the causal connection between the speech and
the evil apprehended cannot be established. The determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification, exaggeration or fabrication falls
within or lies outside the boundaries of protected speech or expression is a judicial function which cannot be arrogated by an administrative body such
as a Board of Censors. A system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies.