Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex.

None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of

expression. That Section 5 penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and
CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section
4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System.

10. Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance. As
the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the use of
information and communications technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater
harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, et al.

G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Fernando, C.J.

Where television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion
pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.

Facts:

The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For Adults Only." The main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification is without legal and factual basis and
is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including
those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a whole,
there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification. All that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film.

Issue:

Whether the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as “For Adults Only”.

Ruling:

YES. The test to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of
an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also
present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal
connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element
cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh
inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio
scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of
expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public
interest.

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. The 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. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited
to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of the Court that where television is
concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons
have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is
hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though
that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. The
Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that
there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only."

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has a preferred status.

Facts:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the
television (TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student
prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University
(PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the
PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers
Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. Acting on the letter-complaints,
the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among Theft,
and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression. That
Section 5 penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL
only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System.

10. Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance. As
the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the use of
information and communications technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater
harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, et al.

G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Fernando, C.J.

Where television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion
pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.

Facts:

The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For Adults Only." The main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification is without legal and factual basis and
is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including
those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a whole,
there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification. All that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film.

Issue:

Whether the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as “For Adults Only”.

Ruling:

YES. The test to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of
an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also
present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal
connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element
cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh
inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio
scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of
expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public
interest.

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. The 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. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited
to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of the Court that where television is
concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons
have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is
hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though
that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. The
Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that
there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only."

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has a preferred status.

Facts:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the
television (TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student
prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University
(PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the
PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers
Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. Acting on the letter-complaints,
the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among Theft,
and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression. That
Section 5 penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL
only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System.

10. Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance. As
the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the use of
information and communications technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater
harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, et al.

G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Fernando, C.J.

Where television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion
pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.

Facts:

The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For Adults Only." The main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification is without legal and factual basis and
is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including
those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a whole,
there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification. All that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film.

Issue:

Whether the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as “For Adults Only”.

Ruling:

YES. The test to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of
an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also
present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal
connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element
cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh
inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio
scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of
expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public
interest.

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. The 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. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited
to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of the Court that where television is
concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons
have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is
hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though
that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. The
Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that
there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only."

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has a preferred status.

Facts:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the
television (TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student
prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University
(PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the
PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers
Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. Acting on the letter-complaints,
the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among Theft,
and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression. That
Section 5 penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL
only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System.

10. Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance. As
the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the use of
information and communications technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater
harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, et al.

G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Fernando, C.J.

Where television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion
pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.

Facts:
 The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For Adults Only." The main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification is without legal and factual basis and
is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including
those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a whole,
there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification. All that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film.

Issue:

Whether the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as “For Adults Only”.

Ruling:

YES. The test to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of
an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also
present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal
connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element
cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh
inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio
scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of
expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public
interest.

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. The 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. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited
to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of the Court that where television is
concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons
have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is
hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though
that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. The
Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that
there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only."

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has a preferred status.

Facts:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the
television (TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student
prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University
(PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the
PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers
Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. Acting on the letter-complaints,
the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among Theft,
and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression. That
Section 5 penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL
only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System.

10. Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance. As
the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the use of
information and communications technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater
harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, et al.

G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Fernando, C.J.

Where television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion
pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.

Facts:

The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For Adults Only." The main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification is without legal and factual basis and
is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including
those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a whole,
there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification. All that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film.

Issue:

Whether the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as “For Adults Only”.

Ruling:

YES. The test to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of
an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also
present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal
connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element
cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh
inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio
scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of
expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public
interest.
 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. The 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. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited
to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of the Court that where television is
concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons
have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is
hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though
that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. The
Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that
there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only."

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has a preferred status.

Facts:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the
television (TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student
prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University
(PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the
PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers
Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. Acting on the letter-complaints,
the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among Theft,
and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression. That
Section 5 penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL
only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System.

10. Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance. As
the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the use of
information and communications technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater
harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, et al.

G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Fernando, C.J.
 Where television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion
pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.

Facts:

The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For Adults Only." The main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification is without legal and factual basis and
is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including
those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a whole,
there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification. All that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film.

Issue:

Whether the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as “For Adults Only”.

Ruling:

YES. The test to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of
an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also
present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal
connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element
cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh
inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio
scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of
expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public
interest.

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. The 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. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited
to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of the Court that where television is
concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons
have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is
hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though
that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. The
Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that
there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only."

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has a preferred status.
Facts:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the
television (TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student
prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University
(PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the
PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers
Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. Acting on the letter-complaints,
the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among Theft,
and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression. That
Section 5 penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL
only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System.

10. Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance. As
the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the use of
information and communications technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater
harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, et al.

G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985, Fernando, C.J.

Where television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion
pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown.

Facts:

The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For Adults Only." The main objection was the
classification of the film as "For Adults Only." For petitioners, such classification is without legal and factual basis and
is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. The film is an integral whole and all its portions, including
those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a whole,
there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its classification. All that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part of the Board's action are the deletions ordered in the film.

Issue:

Whether the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as “For Adults Only”.

Ruling:

YES. The test to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of
an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also
present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal
connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element
cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh
inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio
scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of
expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of
a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public
interest.

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. The 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. All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be limited
to the concept of obscenity applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of the Court that where television is
concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons
have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is
hardly the concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though
that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. The
Supreme Court dismissed petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that
there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only."

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA
G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

There has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that freedom of expression and of the
press has a preferred status.

Facts:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the television
(TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student
prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University
(PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue,
Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the
PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers
Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched
the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. Acting on the letter-
complaints, the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee,
alleging among