Individual Liability Inc Vs Ca 259 SCRA 259 Facts

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY

INC VS CA
259 SCRA 259

Facts:
Petitioner has a television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" aired on
Channel 2 every Saturday and on Channel 13 every Sunday. The program presents
and propagates petitioner's religious beliefs, doctrines and practices often times in
comparative studies with other religions. Petitioner submitted to the respondent Board
of Review for Moving Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of its TV program Series
Nos. 116, 119, 121 and 128. The Board classified the series as "X" or not for public
viewing on the ground that they "offend and constitute an attack against other religions
which is expressly prohibited by law." On November 28, 1992, 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 in 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 Civil Case. Petitioner alleged that the respondent Board acted without jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion in requiring petitioner to submit the VTR tapes of its TV
program and in x-rating them. It cited its TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, 121 and
128. In their Answer, respondent Board invoked its power under PD No. 19861 in
relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. The Iglesia ni Cristo 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's beliefs. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. CA
however reversed it hence this petition.

Issue/s:
Whether or Not the "ang iglesia ni cristo" program is not constitutionally protected
as a form of religious exercise and expression.

Decision:
Yes. Any act that restrains speech is accompanied with 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. This is true in this case.
So-called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of
other religions. RTC’s ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and
interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. “Attack” is different from “offend” any
race or religion.
The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by
petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however, unclean they
may be. Under our constitutional scheme, 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. 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 most numerous church in our country.
The basis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by
encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. 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. 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. 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy