GR 184389 Perlas Bernabe (Digest)
G.R. No. 184389, September 24, 2019
ALLAN MADRILEJOS, ALLAN HERNANDEZ, GLENDA GIL, AND LISA GOKONGWEI-CHENG, PETITIONERS, VS. LOURDES GATDULA, AGNES LOPEZ, HILARION BUBAN, AND THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF MANILA, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners, who were the editor-in-chief, managing editor, circulation manager, and president of Summit Publications (publisher of FHM Magazine), were charged before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Manila for violating Manila Ordinance No. 7780 (the “Anti-Obscenity and Pornography Ordinance of the City of Manila”). The case was docketed as I.S. No. 08G-12234. Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition assailing the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7780, arguing it violates the constitutional right to free speech and expression and privacy rights. They contended the ordinance’s definitions of obscenity and pornography are unduly expansive and disregard the guidelines prescribed in Miller v. California. During the pendency of the petition, the criminal case (I.S. No. 08G-12234) was dismissed by the prosecutor via a Resolution dated June 25, 2013.
ISSUE
Whether the petition challenging the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7780 was rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioners.
RULING
The dissenting opinion argues the case is not moot. The issue of the ordinance’s constitutionality is separate and distinct from the petitioners’ criminal prosecution. The dismissal of the criminal case does not remove the practical legal effect or value of resolving the constitutional challenge because the ordinance remains valid and subsisting, allowing the government to prosecute similar future expressions and creating a chilling effect on protected free speech. The dissenting opinion further argues that a facial challenge on overbreadth grounds is proper. It contends the Court is asked to evaluate the constitutionality of the ordinance’s parameters for defining obscenity, not to examine a material already determined to be obscene. An ordinance with unreasonable parameters for obscenity can sweep unnecessarily broadly into areas of protected free speech. Therefore, the constitutionality issue persists as a live controversy that should be resolved on the merits.