GR 148579; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148579 . February 5, 2007.
GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner GMA Network, Inc., operator of EMC Channel 27, aired the program “Muro Ami: The Making” without securing a prior permit from the respondent Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). Consequently, on January 7, 2000, the MTRCB issued an order suspending the station’s broadcasting operations for seven days, citing a violation of Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1986 and imposing the penalty under its Memorandum Circular No. 98-17. GMA complied with the order but moved for reconsideration and filed a letter-protest, which the MTRCB effectively denied. GMA then elevated the case via a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the MTRCB’s suspension order in its decision dated June 18, 2001.
ISSUE
The pivotal issues were: (1) whether the MTRCB had the authority to subject “Muro Ami: The Making” to prior review; and (2) whether Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, which prescribed the penalty, was enforceable against GMA.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court affirmed the MTRCB’s jurisdiction. Under Section 3 of P.D. 1986, the MTRCB is empowered to screen and review all television programs. The Court agreed with the CA’s finding that the program was a publicity material for the film “Muro Ami,” which did not fall under the statutory exemptions (e.g., government programs and newsreels). The Court further held that even if the program were classified as a public affairs program, as claimed by GMA, it would still be within the MTRCB’s scope of review, as established in prior jurisprudence.
However, on the second issue, the Court ruled that Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was not binding and could not justify the suspension. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, administrative rules must be filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) to be effective. A certification confirmed that the circular had not been filed with the ONAR as of January 27, 2000. Consequently, the circular was not yet effective and could not be enforced against petitioner. The suspension order based on this unenforceable circular was therefore declared null and void. The CA decision was modified accordingly.