125 125 IGLE IGLESI SIA A NI CRIS CRISTO TO vs. vs. COUR COURT T OF APPE APPEAL ALS, S, AUTHOR : (if applicable) BOARD BOARD OF REVIEW FOR MOVING MOVING PICTUR PICTURES ES AND AND NOTES: (if TELEVISION (BRMPT) & HON. MENDOA !G.R. NO. 11"#$%, UL' 2#, 1""# TOPIC: Freedom of Religion; extent of protection PONENTE: Puno CASE LAW DOCTRINE:
The right to religiou profeion and !orhip ha a t!o"fold apect# viz $# $# freedom to belie%e and freedom to act on one& belief$ The firt i abolute a long a the belief i confined !ithin the realm of thought$ The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare$ welfare $ The determination of the extent of protection of the freedom of religion i a 'udicial function that cannot be arrogated to an adminitrati%e agenc$ FACTS* Petitioner gleia ni *rito# a dul organi+ed religiou organi+ation# organi+ation# ha a tele%iion program entitled ,-ng gleia ni *rito, aired on *hannel . e%er Saturda and on *hannel /0 e%er Sunda$ Sunda$ The program preent and propagate petitioner& religiou belief# doctrine and practice often time in comparati%e tudie !ith other religion$ Sometime in the month of September# October and No%ember /11. petitioner ubmitted to the repondent 2oard of Re%ie! for 3o%ing Picture and Tele%iion the 4TR tape of it T4 program Serie No$ //5# //1# /./ and /.6$ The 2oard claified the erie a ,7, or not for public %ie!ing on the ground that the ,offend and contitute an attac8 againt other religion !hich i exprel prohibited b la!$ la!$,, Petitioner purued t!o (.) coure of action againt the repondent 2oard$ On No%ember .6# /11.# it appealed to the Office of the Preident the claification claification of it T4 Serie No$ /.6$ t ucceeded in it appeal for on 9ecember /6# /11.# the Office of the Preident re%ered the deciion of the repondent 2oard$ Forth!ith# the 2oard allo!ed Serie No$ /.6 to be publicl telecat$ On 9ecember /# /11.# petitioner alo filed againt the repondent 2oard *i%il *ae No$ "1."/.6<# !ith the RT*# N*R ue+on *it$ 1 Petitioner alleged that the repondent 2oard acted !ithout 'uridiction or !ith gra%e abue of dicretion in re=uiring petitioner to ubmit the 4TR tape of it T4 program and in x"rating them$ t cited it T4 Program Serie Serie No$ //># //1# /./ and /.6$ n their -n!er# repondent repondent 2oard in%o8ed it po!er under P9 No$ /165 in relation to -rticle . !a filed b N* in the S*$ ISSUE(S): /$ @ON 2R3PT 2R3PT ha ha the po!er po!er to re%ie re%ie! ! the N* T4 Program; Program; .$ -uming -uming that it ha po!er# po!er# did it gra%el abue it dicreti dicretion on in prohibiting prohibiting the airing of the program# program# pecifical pecificall l Epiode Epiode No$ //># //1# /./ for the reaon that the contitute an attac8 againt other religion and that the are indecent# contrar to la!# and good cutom$ 0$ SSAE related to the topic: @ON the N* i not contitutionall contitutionall protected protected a a form of religiou exercie$ exercie$ HELD: /$ BES# BES# the exercie of religiou religiou freedom freedom can be regulated regulated b the State$ State$ CPDE-SE CPDE-SE RE-9 RE-9 ."FOD9 ."FOD9 -SPE*TS -SPE*TS OF R?T R?T TO FREE9O3 OF REDON .$ BES# it it i not the dut to to determine i a 'udicial 'udicial function function not granted granted to a adminitrati%e adminitrati%e agenc$ agenc$ 0$ NO$ -benc -bencee of finding finding that uch attac8 attac8 GoffendH GoffendH other other religion$ religion$ -ppl -ppling ing the clear and preent preent danger danger rule# the iue iue in%ol%e the content of peech$ The peech mut firt be allo!ed in order to meaure the impact and the caual connection bet!een the peech peech and the e%il apprehended# !hich !hich ha not et been been etablihed$ RATIO: FRST SSAE:
Petitioner contend that the term ,tele%iion program, hould not include religiou program li8e it program ,-ng gleia ni *rito$, contrar interpretation# it i urged# !ill contra%ene ection ># -rticle of the *ontitution !hich guarantee that ,no la! hall be made repecting an etablihment of religion# or prohibiting the free exercie thereof$ The free exercie and en'oment of religiou profeion and !orhip# !ithout dicrimination or preference# hall fore%er be allo!ed$, @e re'ect petitioner& ubmiion !hich need not et u adrift in a contitutional %oage to!ard an uncharted ea$ Freedom of religion ha been accorded a preferred status b the framer of our fundamental la!# pat and preent$ @e ha%e affirmed thi preferred tatu !ell a!are that it i ,deigned to protect the broadet poible libert of concience# to allo! each man to belie%e a hi concience direct# to profe hi belief# and to li%e a he belie%e he ought to li%e# conitent !ith the libert of other and !ith the common good$, 1# @e ha%e alo laborioul defined in our 'uriprudence the interecting umbra and penumbra of the right to religiou profeion and !orhip$ To =uote the ummation of 3r$ Iutice agani *ru+# our !ell"8no!n contitutionalit: 1$ Religious Profession and Worship The right to religiou profeion and !orhip ha a t!o"fold apect# viz $# freedom to belie%e and freedom to act on one& belief$ The firt i abolute a long a the belief i confined !ithin the realm of thought$ The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare$ (/) Freedom to Believe The indi%idual i free to belie%e (or dibelie%e) a he pleae concerning the hereafter$ ?e ma indulge hi o!n theorie about life and death; !orhip an god he chooe# or none at all; embrace or re'ect an religion; ac8no!ledge the di%init of od or of an being that appeal to hi re%erence; recogni+e or den the immortalit of hi oul "" in fact# cherih an religiou con%iction a he and he alone ee fit$ ?o!e%er aburd hi belief ma be to other# e%en if the be hotile and heretical to the ma'orit# he ha full freedom to belie%e a he pleae$ ?e ma not be re=uired to pro%e hi belief$ ?e ma not be punihed for hi inabilit to do o$ Religion# after all# i a matter of faith$ ,3en ma belie%e !hat the cannot pro%e$, E%er one ha a right to hi belief and he ma not be called to account becaue he cannot pro%e !hat he belie%e$ (.) Freedom to Act on ne!s Beliefs But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public" his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authorit# of the $tate$ - great a thi libert ma be# religiou freedom# li8e all the other right guaranteed in the *ontitution# can be en'oed onl !ith a proper regard for the right of other$ %t is error to thin& that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the $tate and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare$ The inherent police po!er can be exercied to pre%ent religiou practice inimical to ociet$ -nd thi i true e%en if uch practice are purued out of incere religiou con%iction and not merel for the purpoe of e%ading the reaonable re=uirement or prohibition of the la!$ Iutice Fran8furter put it uccinctl: ,The contitutional pro%iion on religiou freedom terminated diabilitie# it did not create ne! pri%ilege$ t ga%e religiou libert# not ci%il immunit$ %ts essence is freedom from conformit# to religious dogma" not freedom from conformit# to law because of religious dogma$ -ccordingl# !hile one ha lull freedom to belie%e in Satan# he ma not offer the ob'ect of hi piet a human acrifice# a thi !ould be murder$ Thoe !ho literall interpret the 2iblical command to ,go forth and multipl, are ne%erthele not allo!ed to contract plural marriage in %iolation of the la! againt bigam$ - peron cannot refue to pa taxe on the ground that it !ould be againt hi religiou tenet to recogni+e an authorit except that of od alone$ -n atheit cannot expre in hi dibelief in act of deriion that !ound the feeling of the faithful$ The police po!er can %alidl aerted againt the ndian practice of the suttee" born of deep religiou con%iction# that call on the !ido! to immolate herelf at the funeral pile of her huband$ Tele%iion i a medium that reache e%en the ee and ear of children$ The *ourt iterate the rule that the exercie of religiou freedom can be regulated b the State !hen it !ill bring about the clear and preent danger of ome ubtanti%e e%il !hich the State i dut bound to pre%ent# i$e$# eriou detriment to the more o%erriding interet of public health# public moral# or public !elfare$ - laissez faire polic on the exercie of religion can be educti%e to the liberal mind but hitor counel the *ourt againt it blind adoption a religion i and continue to be a %olatile area of concern in our countr toda$
SE*ON9 SSAE: n um# the repondent 2oard x"rated petitioner& T4 program erie No$ //># //1# /./ and /.6 becaue of petitioner& contro%erial biblical interpretation and it ,attac8, againt contrar religiou belief$ The repondent appellate court agreed and e%en held that the aid ,attac8, are indecent# contrar to la! and good cutom$ @e re%ere the ruling of the appellate court$ First $ 9eepl enconced in our fundamental la! i it hotilit againt all prior retraint on peech# including religiou peech$ ?ence# an act that retrain peech i hobbled b the preumption of in%alidit and hould be greeted !ith furro!ed bro!$ 1" t i the burden of the repondent 2oard to o%erthro! thi preumption$ f it fail to dicharge thi burden# it act of cenorhip !ill be truc8 do!n$ t failed in the cae at bar$ $econd $ The e%idence ho! that the repondent 2oard x"rated petitioner T4 erie for ,attac8ing, either religion# epeciall the *atholic church$ -n examination of the e%idence# epeciall Exhibit ,-#, ,-"/#, ,2#, ,*#, and ,9, !ill ho! that the o"called ,attac8, are mere criticisms of ome of the deepl held dogma and tenet of other religion$ The %ideotape !ere not %ie!ed b the repondent court a the !ere not preented a e%idence$ Bet the !ere conidered b the repondent court a indecent# contrar to la! and good cutom# hence# can be prohibited from public %ie!ing under ection 0(c) of P9 /165$ Thi ruling clearl uppree petitioner& freedom of peech and interfere !ith it right to free exercie of religion$ The record ho! that the deciion of the repondent 2oard# affirmed b the repondent appellate court# i completel bereft of findings of facts to 'utif the conclusion that the ub'ect %ideo tape contitute impermiible attac8 againt another religion$ There i no ho!ing !hatoe%er of the t#pe of harm the tape !ill bring about epeciall the gra%it and imminence of the threatened harm$ Prior restraint on speech" including religious speech" cannot be justified b# h#pothetical fears but onl# b# the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has ta&en the life of a realit# alread# on ground $ Finall# it i alo opined b 3r$ Iutice Japunan that ,$ $ $ the determination of the =uetion a to !hether or not uch %ilification# exaggeration or fabrication fall !ithin or lie outide the boundarie of protected peech or expreion i a judicial function !hich cannot be arrogated b an adminitrati%e bod uch a a 2oard of *enor$, ?e ubmit that a ,tem of prior retraint ma onl# be %alidl adminitered b judges and not left to adminitrati%e agencie$ ,The ame ubmiion i made b 3r$ Iutice 3endo+a$ N 4E@ @?EREOF# the 9eciion of the repondent *ourt of -ppeal dated 3arch .# /11> i affirmed inofar a it utained the 'uridiction of the repondent 3TR*2 to re%ie! petitioner& T4 program entitled ,-ng gleia ni *rito#, and i re%ered and et aide inofar a it utained the action of the repondent 3TR*2 x"rating petitioner& T4 Program Serie No$ //># //1# and /./$ No cot$ DISSENTINGCONCURRING OPINION(S): Panganiban (concurring) Religious Freedom '' A (herished Right F%R$T # agree !ith the ponencia that ,(f)reedom of religion ha been accorded a preferred tatu b the framer of our fundamental la!# pat and preent$, Religiou freedom i abolute !hen it i confined !ithin the realm of thought to a pri%ate# peronal relationhip bet!een a man& concience and hi od# but it i ub'ect to regulation !hen religiou belief i tranformed into external act that affect or afflict other$ The mere in%ocation of religiou freedom !ill not talemate the State and ipso facto render it incompetent in preer%ing the right of other and in protecting the general !elfare$ PADILLA, J., concurring and dienting:
concur !ith the ma'orit opinion inofar a it remo%e the ban againt the ho!ing of petitioner& T4 Program Serie No$ //># //1 and /./$ ?o!e%er# diagree !ith that part of the ma'orit opinion !hich uphold the po!er of repondent 2oard to ub'ect to prior retraint petitioner& religiou tele%iion program$ t hould b no! be undiputabl recogni+ed and firml rooted in thi countr that there can be no prior restraints on the exercise of free speech expression or religion unle uch exercie poe a clear and preent danger of a ubtanti%e e%il !hich the State ha the right and e%en the dut to pre%ent$ The ban againt uch prior retraint !ill reult# a it ha reulted in the pat# in occaional abue of free peech and expreion but it i immeaurabl preferable to experience uch occaional abue of peech and expreion than to arm a go%ernmental adminitrati%e agenc !ith the authorit to cenor peech and expreion in accordance !ith legilati%e% tandard !hich albeit apparentl laudable in their nature# can %er !ell be bent or tretched b uch agenc to con%enient latitude a to frutrate and e%icerate the preciou freedom of peech and expreion$ 2eide# an peron !ho ma feel aggrie%ed b the exercie of free peech# expreion and religion# i afforded# under our tem# the
remed of redre in the court of la!# 'utice and e=uit$ n hort# it i far better for the indi%idual to li%e in a climate of free peech and free expreion# de%oid of prior retraint# e%en at the ri8 of occaional excee of uch freedom than to exit in an ambiance of cenorhip !hich i al!a a tep cloer to autocrac and dictatorhip$ MENDOA, J., concurring: 3 poition !ill be pelled out preentl but# in brief# it i thi: *enorhip ma be allo!ed onl in anarro! cla of cae in%ol%ing pornograph# excei%e %iolence# and danger to national ecurit$ E%en in thee cae# onl court can prohibit the ho!ing of a film or the broadcat of a program$ n all other cae# the onl remed againt peech !hich create a clear and preent danger to public interet i through ube=uent punihment$ *onidering the potentialit for harm !hich motion picture and T4 program ma ha%e epeciall on the oung# all material ma %alidl be re=uired to be ubmitted for re%ie! before the ma be ho!n or broadcat$ ?o!e%er# the final determination of the character of the material cannot be left to an adminitrati%e agenc$ That 'udicial re%ie! of adminitrati%e action i a%ailable doe not ob%iate the contitutional ob'ection to cenorhip$ For thee reaon# !ould hold K0(b) of P$9$ No$ /165# !hich gi%e to the 2oard limited time for re%ie!# to be %alid# !hile finding K0(c)# under !hich the 2oard acted in thi cae in cenoring petitioner& material# to be# on it face and a applied# uncontitutional$ MELO, J., concurring and dienting:
Freedom of religion and expreion i the rule and it retriction# the exception$ -n prior retriction on the exercie of the freedom to profe religiou faith and the propagation thereof !ill undul diminih that religion& authorit to pread !hat it belie%e to be the acred truth$ The State can exercie no po!er to retrict uch right until the exercie thereof tra%ere the point that !ill endanger the order of ci%il ociet$ Thu !e ha%e ruled in the cae of )bralinag vs$ The *ivision $uperintendent of $chools of (ebu (./1 S*R- .L< C/110): The ole 'utification for a gi%en retraint or limitation on the exercie of religiou freedom i the exitence of a gra%e and preent danger of a character both gra%e and imminent of a eriou e%il to public afet# public moral# public health or an other legitimate public interet that the tate ha the right and dut to pre%ent$ *orrepondingl# the 3TR*2 ha no authorit to ue a tandard# the dangerou tendenc rule# !hich !e ha%e long abandoned and for !hich reaon# the dangerou tendenc tandard under Subparagraph *# Section 0 of Preidential 9ecree No$ /165 ha no place in our tatute boo8$
