INC v.

CA outline
Petitioner: Iglesia ni Cristo (INC)
Respondents: Court of Appeals (CA), Board of Review for Moving Pictures and elevision
(BRMP), !on. !enrietta Mende" (C#airperson of BRMP)
$acts of t#e case
- review for t#e Marc# %&, '(() decision of CA *a+r,ing t#e action of t#e respondent
Board of Review for Moving Pictures and elevision w#ic# -.rated t#e / Progra, 0Ang
Iglesia ni Cristo.01
- / progra, *Ang Iglesia ni Cristo1
2aired on C#annel % ever3 4aturda3 and on C#annel '5 ever3 4unda3
2 presents and propagates petitioner6s religious 7eliefs, doctrines and practices often
ti,es in co,parative studies wit# ot#er religions
2 so,eti,e in 4ept, 8ct, and Nov '((%, INC su7,itted tapes of its progra, for review
(4eries Nos. ''9, ''(, '%' and '%:)
2 Board classi;ed t#e series as *<,1 ,eaning not for pu7lic viewing 7ecause t#e3
0o=end and constitute an attac> against ot#er religions w#ic# is e-pressl3 pro#i7ited 73
law.0
- INC?s two courses of action:
'. (Nov %:, '((%) @ appealed to t#e 8+ce of t#e President t#e classi;cation of its /
4eries No. '%:
(Aec ':) @ 8+ce of t#e Pres. reversed t#e decision of t#e respondent Board, Board
allowed pu7lic telecast of No. '%:
%. (Aec '&) @ INC ;led civil case against Board sa Bue"on Cit3 RC: Board acted
wit#out Curisdiction or wit# grave a7use of discretion in reDuiring petitioner to
su7,it t#e /R tapes of its / progra, and in -.rating t#e,
. Board answered, invo>ed its power under PA No. '(:9 in relation to Article %E' of t#e
Revised Penal Code
. rial on Fan. &, '((5 for petitioner?s pra3er of writ of preli,inar3 inCunction
. INC
2 Inconsistencies, criticis,s a7out ot#er religion
2 attac>s on ot#er fait#
2 ro7s o= all sects of freedo, of c#oice, wors#ip and decision
2 dictate an3 ot#er religion t#at t#e3 are rig#t and t#e rest are wrong
2 G-ecutive 4ecretar3 Gdel,iro A. A,ante?s letter reversing Board?s decision (protected 73
t#e constitutional guarantee of free speec# and e-pression, no indication t#at t#e episode
poses an3 clear and present danger su+cient to li,it t#e said constitutional guarantee)
2 Hetter to $idel Ra,os re: series '%:
. Board
2 Per,it to pu7licl3 televise series no. '%: under parental guidance
2 4a,e letter of A,ante
2 Hetter of Mende" to C#ristian Gra Broadcasting 4ervice I7roadcast ar, of INCJ (Board was
constrained to den3 3our s#ow a per,it to e-#i7it. #e ,aterial involved constitutes an
attac> against anot#er religion w#ic# is e-pressl3 pro#i7ited 73 law. Please 7e guided in t#e
su7,ission of future s#ows)
2 rial court issued a writ of preli,inar3 inCunction on petitioner6s 7ond o P'E,EEE.EE.
2 rial Court Cudg,ent (Aece,7er '), '((5)
K!GRG$8RG, Cudg,ent is #ere73 rendered ordering respondent Board of Review for Moving
Pictures and elevision (BRMP) to grant petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo t#e necessar3 per,it for
all t#e series of 0Ang Iglesia ni Cristo0 progra,.
Petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo, #owever, is directed to refrain fro, o=ending and attac>ing ot#er
e-isting religions in s#owing 0Ang Iglesia ni Cristo0 progra,.
. INC ,oved for reconsideration
'. deletion of %
nd
par
%. perpetuall3 enCoined fro, reDuiring petitioner to su7,it for review t#e tapes of its
progra,
. respondent Board opposed t#e petition
. (Marc# L, '((5) RC granted ,otion for reconsideration:
K!GRG$8RG, t#e Motion for Reconsideration is granted. #e second portion of t#e Court6s
8rder dated Aece,7er '), '((5, directing petitioner to refrain fro, o=ending and attac>ing
ot#er e-isting religions in s#owing 0Ang Iglesia ni Cristo0 progra, is #ere73 deleted and set
aside. Respondents are furt#er pro#i7ited fro, reDuiring petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo to su7,it
for review /R tapes of its religious progra, 0Ang Iglesia ni Cristo
. Board appealed to CA
. (Marc# ), '(()) CA reversed decision of trial court
'. respondent 7oard #as Curisdiction and power to review t#e / progra, 0Ang Iglesia ni
Cristo
%. Board did not act wit# grave a7use of discretion w#en it denied per,it for t#e e-#i7ition
on / of t#e t#ree series of 0Ang Iglesia ni Cristo0 on t#e ground t#at t#e ,aterials
constitute an attac> against anot#er religionM found t#e series 0indecent, contrar3 to law and
contrar3 to good custo,s.
. INC raised t#e = issues:
'. K#et#er or not t#e #onora7le Court of Appeals erred in #olding t#at t#e *Ang Iglesia ni
Cristo1 progra, is not constitutionall3 protected as a for, of religious e-ercise and
e-pression
%. K!G!GR 8R N8 !G !8N8RABHG C8NR 8$ APPGAH4 GRRGA IN N8 !8HAINO !A
BGINO AN G<GRCI4G 8$ RGHIOI8N4 $RGGA8M, !G 0ANO IOHG4IA NI CRI480 PR8ORAM I4
4NBFGC 8 !G P8HICG P8KGR 8$ !G 4AG 8NHP IN !G G<RGMG CA4G !A I P84G4
A CHGAR ANA PRG4GN AANOGR.
5. K!G!GR 8R N8 !G !8N8RABHG C8NR 8$ APPGAH4 GRRGA IN !8HAINO !A !G
MRCB I4 /G4GA KI! !G P8KGR 8 CGN48R RGHIOI8N4 PR8ORAM4.
&. K!G!GR 8R N8 !G !8N8RABHG C8NR 8$ APPGAH4 GRRGA IN !8HAINO !A !G
0ANO IOHG4IA NI CRI48,0 A PNRGHP RGHIOI8N4 PR8ORAM I4 INAGCGN ANA C8NRARP 8
HAK ANA O88A CN48M4.
. Basic issues:
'. w#et#er t#e respondent Board #as t#e power to review petitioner6s / progra, 0Ang
Iglesia ni Cristo0
%. assu,ing it #as t#e power, w#et#er it gravel3 a7used its discretion w#en it pro#i7ited t#e
airing of petitioner6s religious progra,, series Nos. ''), ''( and '%', for t#e reason t#at
t#e3 constitute an attac> against ot#er religions and t#at t#e3 are indecent, contrar3 to law
and good custo,s
. e-a,ine t#e powers of t#e Board under (4ec. 5 Powers and $unctions) PA No. '(:9: #e
law gives t#e Board t#e power to screen, review and e-a,ine all 0television progra,s.0
. INC sa3s *tv progra,s1 s#ould not include religious progra,s, 7ut 4C sa3s it will violate
section ), Article III of Consti:
no law s#all 7e ,ade respecting an esta7lis#,ent of religion, or pro#i7iting t#e free e-ercise
t#ereof
. ReCected petitioner?s su7,ission
2 $reedo, of religion #as 7een accorded a preferred status 73 t#e fra,ers of our
funda,ental laws, past and present
20designed to protect t#e 7roadest possi7le li7ert3 of conscience, to allow eac# ,an to
7elieve as #is conscience directs, to profess #is 7eliefs, and to live as #e 7elieves #e oug#t
to live, consistent wit# t#e li7ert3 of ot#ers and wit# t#e co,,on good.0
2 Constitutionalist Fustice Isagani Cru": #e rig#t to religious profession and wors#ip #as a
two.fold aspect, vi"., freedo, to 7elieve and freedo, to act on one6s 7eliefs. #e ;rst is
a7solute as long as t#e 7elief is con;ned wit#in t#e real, of t#oug#t. #e second is su7Cect
to regulation w#ere t#e 7elief is translated into e-ternal acts t#at a=ect t#e pu7lic welfare.
2 e,p#asis on Q%: But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that
afect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. As
great as t#is li7ert3 ,a3 7e, religious freedo,, li>e all t#e ot#er rig#ts guaranteed in t#e
Constitution, can 7e enCo3ed onl3 wit# a proper regard for t#e rig#ts of ot#ers. It is error to
t#in> t#at t#e ,ere invocation of religious freedo, will stale,ate t#e 4tate and render it
i,potent in protecting t#e general welfare. #e in#erent police power can 7e e-ercised to
prevent religious practices ini,ical to societ3. And t#is is true even if suc# practices are
pursued out of sincere religious conviction and not ,erel3 for t#e purpose of evading t#e
reasona7le reDuire,ents or pro#i7itions of t#e law.
2 Fustice $ran>furter put it succinctl3: 0#e constitutional provision on religious freedo,
ter,inated disa7ilities, it did not create new privileges. It gave religious li7ert3, not civil
i,,unit3. Its essence is freedo, fro, confor,it3 to religious dog,a, not freedo, fro,
confor,it3 to law 7ecause of religious dog,a.
. AGCI4I8N: reCect petitioner6s postulate t#at its religious progra, is per se 7e3ond review 73
t#e respondent Board
2 t#e e-ercise of religious freedo, can 7e regulated 73 t#e 4tate w#en it will 7ring a7out t#e
clear and present danger of so,e su7stantive evil w#ic# t#e 4tate is dut3 7ound to prevent
2 7loodiest and 7itterest wars foug#t 73 ,en were caused 73 irreconcila7le religious
di=erences
2 $or sure, we s#all continue to su7Cect an3 act pinc#ing t#e space for t#e free e-ercise of
religion to a #eig#tened scrutin3 7ut we s#all not leave its rational e-ercise to t#e
irrationalit3 of ,an. $or w#en religion divides and its e-ercise destro3s, t#e 4tate s#ould not
stand still
. 8n CA?s a+r,ation t#at several Ang INC series are -.rated: AGCI4I8N: RG/GR4G RNHINO
'. An3 act t#at restrains speec# is #o77led 73 t#e presu,ption of invalidit3 and s#ould 7e
greeted wit# furrowed 7rows. It is t#e 7urden of t#e respondent Board to overt#row t#is
presu,ption. If it fails to disc#arge t#is 7urden, its act of censors#ip will 7e struc> down. It
failed in t#e case at 7ar.
%. #e *attac>s1 on t#e Ang INC series are ,ere criticis,s of so,e of t#e deepl3 #eld
dog,as and tenets of ot#er religionsM CA didn?t review t#e tapes as t#e3 were not presented
as evidence BN t#e3 were considered indecentM suppresses petitioner6s freedo, of speec#
and interferes wit# its rig#t to free e-ercise of religion
2 Benc#,ar> case Cantwell v. Connecticut: In t#e real, of religious fait#, and in t#at of
political 7elief, s#arp di=erences arise. In 7ot# ;elds, t#e tenets of one ,an ,a3 see, t#e
ran>est error to #is neig#7or. o persuade ot#ers to #is own point of view, t#e pleader, as we
>now, at ti,es, resorts to e-aggeration, to vili;cation of ,en w#o #ave 7een, or are
pro,inent in c#urc# or state or even to false state,ents. But t#e people of t#is nation #ave
ordained in t#e lig#t of #istor3 t#at inspite of t#e pro7a7ilit3 of e-cesses and a7uses, t#ese
li7erties are, in t#e long view, essential to enlig#tened opinion and rig#t conduct on t#e part
of t#e citi"ens of de,ocrac3
2 Nnder our constitutional sc#e,e, it is not t#e tas> of t#e 4tate to favor an3 religion 73
protecting it against an attac> 73 anot#er religion
2 Respondent 7oard cannot sDuelc# t#e speec# of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo si,pl3 7ecause
it attac>s ot#er religions, even if said religion #appens to 7e t#e ,ost nu,erous c#urc# in
our countr3
2 In a 4tate w#ere t#ere oug#t to 7e no di=erence 7etween t#e appearance and t#e realit3 of
freedo, of religion, t#e re,ed3 against 7ad t#eolog3 is 7etter t#eolog3. #e 7edroc> of
freedo, of religion is freedo, of t#oug#t and it is 7est served 73 encouraging t#e
,ar>etplace of dueling ideas. K#en t#e lu-ur3 of ti,e per,its, t#e ,ar>etplace of ideas
de,ands t#at speec# s#ould 7e ,et 73 ,ore speec# for it is t#e spar> of opposite speec#,
t#e #eat of colliding ideas t#at can fan t#e e,7ers of trut#
5. #e word 0attac>0 is not s3non3,ous wit# t#e word 0o=end
2 Article %E' (%) (7) (5) of t#e Revised Penal Code s#ould 7e invo>ed to Custif3 t#e
su7seDuent punis#,ent of a s#ow w#ic# o=ends an3 religion. It cannot 7e utili"ed to Custif3
prior censors#ip of speec#
2 Neptali Oon"ales: 8n t#e face of t#e law itself, t#ere can conceiva7l3 7e no 7asis for
censors#ip of said progra, 73 t#e Board as ,uc# as t#e alleged reason cited 73 t#e Board
does not appear to #e wit#in t#e conte,plation of t#e standards of censors#ip set 73 law
&. In <.rating t#e series, respondents failed to appl3 t#e clear and present danger rule
2 A,erican Bi7le 4ociet3 v. Cit3 of Manila: #e constitutional guarant3 of free e-ercise and
enCo3,ent of religious profession and wors#ip carries wit# it t#e rig#t to disse,inate
religious infor,ation
2 /ictoriano vs. Gli"alde Rope Kor>ers Nnion: 0. . . it is onl3 w#ere it is unavoida7l3 necessar3
to prevent an i,,ediate and grave danger to t#e securit3 and welfare of t#e co,,unit3
t#at infringe,ent of religious freedo, ,a3 7e Custi;ed, and onl3 to t#e s,allest e-tent
necessar3 to avoid t#e danger.0
2 7ereft of ;ndings of facts . no s#owing w#atsoever of t#e t3pe of #ar, t#e tapes will 7ring
a7out especiall3 t#e gravit3 and i,,inence of t#e t#reatened #ar,. Prior restraint on
speec#, including religious speec#, cannot 7e Custi;ed 73 #3pot#etical fears 7ut onl3 73 t#e
s#owing of a su7stantive and i,,inent evil w#ic# #as ta>en t#e life of a realit3 alread3 on
ground.
2 Clear and present danger rule per,utations
4c#enc> v. N4 . 0. . . t#e Duestion in ever3 case is w#et#er t#e words used are used in suc#
circu,stances and are of suc# a nature as to create a clear and present danger t#at t#e3
will 7ring a7out t#e su7stantive evils t#at Congress #as a rig#t to prevent.0
!ol,es and Brandeis . its u,7rella was used to protect speec# ot#er t#an su7versive
speec#
Aennis v. Nnited 4tates . 0. . . in eac# case IcourtsJ ,ust as> w#et#er t#e gravit3 of t#e
6evil,6 discounted 73 its i,pro7a7ilit3, Custi;es suc# invasion of free speec# as is necessar3 to
avoid t#e danger.0 (I,,inence reDt di,inis#edM protection of t#e rule was wea>ened)
Branden7urg v. 8#io @ i,,inence test restored R intent reDuire,ent
At present (in N4) . clear and present danger test is not applied to protect low value
speec#es suc# as o7scene speec#, co,,ercial speec# and defa,ationM applica7le onl3 to:
'. speec# t#at advocates dangerous ideas
%. speec# t#at provo>es a #ostile audience reaction
5. out of court conte,pt
&. release of infor,ation t#at endangers a fair trial
2t#ere is reason to appl3 t#e clear and present danger test to t#e case at 7ar w#ic# concerns
speec# t#at attac>s ot#er religions and could readil3 provo>e #ostile audience reaction. It
cannot 7e dou7ted t#at religious trut#s distur7 and distur7 terri7l3
2 still inappropriate 7ecause case at 7ar is C8NGN.RGHAGA and not t#e ti,e, place, and
,anner
2 unless t#e speec# is ;rst allowed, its i,pact cannot 7e ,easured, and t#e causal
connection 7etween t#e speec# and t#e evil appre#ended cannot 7e esta7lis#ed
2 #e contention overloo>s t#e fact t#at t#e case at 7ar involves videotapes t#at are pre.
taped and #ence, t#eir speec# content is >nown and not an < Duantit3. Oiven t#e speci;c
content of t#e speec#, it is not unreasona7le to assu,e t#at t#e respondent Board, wit# its
e-pertise, can deter,ine w#et#er its sulp#ur will 7ring a7out t#e su7stantive evil feared 73
t#e law.
. Sapunan and Mendo"a: a 0s3ste, of prior restraint ,a3 onl3 7e validl3 ad,inistered 73
Cudges and not left to ad,inistrative agencies.
2 N4 case ($reed,an v. Mar3land): t#e teac#ing of cases is t#at, 7ecause onl3 a Cudicial
deter,ination in an adversar3 proceeding ensures t#e necessar3 sensitivit3 to freedo, of
e-pression onl3 a procedure reDuiring a Cudicial deter,ination su+ces to i,pose a valid ;nal
restraint
2 Ke are not read3 to #old t#at it is unconstitutional for Congress to grant an ad,inistrative
7od3 Duasi.Cudicial power to preview and classif3 / progra,s and enforce its decision
su7Cect to review 73 our courts
2 In e-cluding an3 pu7lication for t#e ,ails, t#e o7Cect s#ould 7e not to interfere wit# t#e
freedo, of t#e press or wit# an3 ot#er funda,ental rig#t of t#e people. #is is t#e ,ore true
wit# reference to articles supposedl3 li7elous t#an to ot#er particulars of t#e law, since
w#et#er an article is or is not li7elous, is funda,entall3 a legal Duestion. In order for t#ere to
7e due process of law, t#e action of t#e Airector of Posts ,ust 7e su7Cect to revision 73 t#e
courts in case #e #ad a7used #is discretion or e-ceeded #is aut#orit3
. Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated March 24, 1995 is afrmed
insofar as it sustained the jurisdiction of the respondent MTRC to re!ie"
petitioner#s T$ pro%ram entitled &An% '%lesia ni Cristo,& and is re!ersed and set
aside insofar as it sustained the action of the respondent MTRC ()ratin%
petitioner#s T$ *ro%ram