G.R. No. 184389, November 16, 2021
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, editors and publisher of FHM Philippines, filed a Special Civil Action for Prohibition to enjoin the preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint against them for Grave Scandal under Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Manila City Ordinance No. 7780, which penalizes the printing, distribution, circulation, and sale of scandalous, obscene, and pornographic materials. Petitioners argued that the ordinance is unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad, violating their rights to free speech, expression, due process, privacy, and the principle of separation of church and state. While the case was pending, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila dismissed the charges under the ordinance and Article 200 of the RPC, and instead filed an information for violation of Article 201(3) of the RPC, which was eventually dismissed by the trial court. The Court, in a Decision dated September 24, 2019, dismissed the Petition, holding that the dismissal of the criminal charges rendered the case moot and academic, and that Ordinance No. 7780, as an anti-obscenity law, cannot be facially attacked on overbreadth grounds as obscenity is unprotected speech. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, primarily concerning: (1) the application of the mootness doctrine to the case; and (2) the facial constitutional challenge against Manila City Ordinance No. 7780 on grounds of overbreadth and vagueness.

RULING

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Court upheld its prior dismissal of the Petition.
1. On Mootness: The case was rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the criminal charges against petitioners for violation of Ordinance No. 7780. The Court rejected the application of the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception, as petitioners failed to show that: (a) a criminal prosecution under the ordinance is of such short duration as to prevent judicial review; and (b) there is a reasonable expectation, beyond mere speculation, that they would be subjected to prosecution under the same ordinance again. The Court emphasized the policy of constitutional avoidance, stating that where a controversy can be settled on other grounds, it should refrain from constitutional adjudication.
2. On Facial Challenge and Overbreadth: The Court reiterated that a facial challenge on the grounds of vagueness or overbreadth is not permissible against a penal statute. The overbreadth doctrine has special application in free speech cases but is not used to test the validity of penal laws. Ordinance No. 7780 criminalizes obscenity and pornography, which are categories of unprotected speech. The State, as parens patriae, has the right and mandate to protect the public from such materials. Laws regulating obscenity cannot be facially invalidated, as there is no “transcendent value to society” in protecting obscene speech that would justify such an attack. The Court also noted that the Manila City Council, an indispensable party, was not made a party to the proceedings.
The Court concluded that while it has the power to resolve constitutional questions, judicial self-restraint dictates that it should not strike down a legislative enactment based on seemingly unfounded presumptions without a full-blown hearing involving all indispensable parties in an actual case.