Iglesia

Ni Cristo v. CA

I. TITLE AND CITATION
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, G.R. No. 119673 (July 26,1996)

II. NATURE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Iglesia Ni Cristo questioning the
jurisdiction of MTRCB over their programs on TV and abusing their
discretion in classifying their program as “not for public viewing”.

III. FACTS
Iglesia Ni Cristo(petitioner) submitted to the Board of Review for Moving
Pictures and television the VTR tapes of its TV program. The Board
classified the series as “X” or not for public viewing on the ground that
they “offend and attack against other religions which is expressly
prohibited by law. Petitioner INC went to court to question the action of
the respondent Board. The RTC ordered the respondent Board to grant
petitioner INC the necessary permit for its TV programs. But on appeal of
the respondent Board, the CA reverse the decision rendered by RTC. 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 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 of “indecent, contrary to law and
good customs” hence petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

IV. ISSUES
1. Whether the respondent Board has the power to review petitioner’s
TV program “Ang Iglesia Ni Cristo”.
2. Whether it greatly abused its discretion when it prohibits the airing of
petitioner’s religious program.

V. DECISION
The SC affirmed the jurisdiction of the MTRCB over the petitioner’s
program and reversed the action of the respondent MTRCB x-rating
petitioner’s program.



VI. REASONING
For the affirmation;
Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children.
The Court reiterates the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be
regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present
danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to
 prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public
health, public morals, or public welfare.

For the reversion;
It is settled in our fundamental law is its hostility against all prior
restraints on speech, including religious speech. 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.