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

On February 19, 1993, the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7780, the “Anti-Obscenity and Pornography Ordinance of the City of Manila.” The ordinance prescribes criminal penalties for the printing, publishing, distribution, circulation, sale, production, exhibition, showing, or viewing of obscene and pornographic materials. It defines “obscene” broadly as any material or act that is indecent, erotic, lewd, offensive, contrary to morals or religious beliefs, tends to corrupt the human mind, excites impure imagination, arouses prurient interest, or is unfit to be seen or heard. Specific examples include materials showing or describing sexual acts, children in sexual acts, completely nude human bodies, or human sexual organs or female breasts. “Pornography” is similarly defined. On July 7, 2008, a group led by then Representative Bienvenido Abante, Jr., the ordinance’s principal author, filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila against officers and publishers of various magazines and tabloids, including FHM Magazine published by Summit Publishing Company, Inc. The complaint alleged violations of Articles 200 and 201 of the Revised Penal Code and Ordinance No. 7780. The petitioners—Allan Madrilejos (editor-in-chief), Allan Hernandez (managing editor), Glenda Gil (circulation manager) of FHM, and Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng (president of Summit Media)—were subpoenaed by a special panel of prosecutors. On September 24, 2008, the petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition seeking to prevent the implementation of Ordinance No. 7780, claiming it is unconstitutional on its face for violating the right to free speech and expression, due process, privacy rights, and the principle of separation of Church and State.

ISSUE

Whether Manila Ordinance No. 7780 is unconstitutional for being overbroad and vague, thereby violating the constitutional rights to free speech and expression and due process of law.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that Ordinance No. 7780 is unconstitutional. It violates the fundamental tenets of free expression and due process because its terms are so broad and vague that they easily allow repeated prosecution and chill both creative and political expression. The ordinance fails to follow the established canonical framework for determining obscenity as adopted in Soriano v. Laguardia, which requires applying the Miller v. California guidelines: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary standards, finds the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Instead, the ordinance uses sweeping definitions that encompass materials protected by the Constitution. An overbroad provision that goes beyond punishing obscenity provides an uncontrolled warrant to attack protected creative speech and chills the fundamental right of expression. Therefore, as the sentinel of the Bill of Rights, the Court should strike down the ordinance as unconstitutional.