JOSE GONZALES VS.

CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK

July 22, 1985

Facts:
Petitioner was the producer of the movie Kapit sa Patalim which the Board of
Review for Motion Pictures and Televisions allowed on condition that certain
deletions were made and that it was shown on adults only. The petitioner brought an
action, claiming violation of their freedom of expression.

Procedural History:
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioners stating that the
classification of the film "For Adults Only" was without basis.
 Then on November 12, 1984, respondent Board released its decision and
affirm in toto the ruling of the sub-committee. The Board further resolves to
direct the Chairman of the Board to Withheld the issuance of the Permit to
exhibit until these deficiencies are supplied
 Petitioner filed petition for Certiorari

Issue:
Whether or not the rating was made with grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:
No.

Motion pictures are important both as a method for the communication of

ideas and the expression of the artistic impulse. The power of the Board is limited to
the classification of films. For freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the
exception. The power to impose prior restraint is not to be presumed, rather the
presumption is against its validity. Censorship is allowable only under the clearest
proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety, public
morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest. The Board committed
an abuse of discretion in subjecting petitioner to difficulty and travail before the
movie was classified as "For adults only" without deletion.

In this case, however there is not enough votes to consider the abuse of
discretion grave as it explained that there were reasons for its action because of the
scenes showing women erotically dancing naked and kissing and caressing each
other like lesbians.

Notes: As to the deletion, the only case when the Board of Censors can order a
deletion is when there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil against
national security or public morals or other public interest. In all other cases, the
Board can only classify.

But a different standard must be followed in television because of the pervasive

and intrusive influence of the medium on people who watch its programs without
having to pay anything.
 On the issue of obscenity, the SC held that sex along is not necessarily obscenity,
the test being whether, using contemporary community standards, the dominant
appeal us to the prurient interest. (Miller v. California). Thus in this case, it found
abuse of discretion of the part of the Board for subjecting the producer to difficulty
and for entertaining a narrow view of obscenity, but it lacked the votes to rules that
the abuse was grave.