CASES

MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN

FACTS:
On

October 15, 1991, at 10:45 pm, respondent ABSCBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the TV program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. the course of the program, student prostitutes, customers, and faculty members were interviewed, and Philippine Womens University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved.

In

 Dr.

Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU and PWU-PTA filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB.

Respondents

explained that The Inside Story is a public affairs program, news documentary, and socio-political editorial, and that the airing of which is protected by the constitutional provision of freedom of expression and of the press. November 18, 1997, the RTC rendered a Decision in favour of the respondents.

On

Petitioner contended that: 1. All TV programs are subject to petitioners power of review under Section 3(b) of PD No. 1986. 2. Petitioners power to review television programs under Section 3(b) of PD No. 1986 does not amount to prior restraint.

3. Section 3(b) of PD No. 1986 does not violate respondents constitutional freedom of expression and of the press.

ISSUE:
Whether

or not the MTRCB has the power or authority to review the The Inside Story prior to its exhibition or broadcast by television.

RESOLUTION:
YES.

The law gives the Board the power to screen, review, and examine all TV programs. When the law says all TV programs, the word all covers all TV programs, whether religious, public affairs, news documentary, etc. dated November 18, 1997 in favour of the respondents and Order dated August 26, 2002 are hereby REVERSED. Cost against respondents.

Decision

GONZALES vs KATIGBAK
FACTS:
Petitioner is

Jose Antonio U. Gonzales, President of Malaya Films, while the respondent is Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television, with Maria Kalaw Katigbak as its Chairman. resolution of a sub-committee of respondent Board of October 23, 1984, a permit to exhibit the film Kapit sa Patalim under the classification For Adults Only, with certain changes and deletions was granted.

In

motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners stating that the classification of the film For Adults Only was without basis and is exercised as impermissible restraint of artistic expression. further stated that the petitioner has an option to have the film reclassified to For-GeneralPatronage if it would agree to remove the obscene scenes and pare down the violence in the film. refused the For Adults Only classification and instead filed a suit for certiorari.

Respondent

Petitioner, however,

ISSUE:
Whether

or not there was grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as For-Adults-Only.

RESOLUTION:
The

Court dismisses the petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that there was grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as For-AdultsOnly.