Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA

Iglesia ni Cristo v.
Court of Appeals
G.R. NO. 119673
26 JUL 1996 Issue: Whether or Not the "Ang iglesia ni
Cristo" program is not constitutionally
Facts: Petitioner has a television program protected as a form of religious exercise
entitled "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" aired on and expression.
Channel 2 every Saturday and on Channel
13 every Sunday. The program presents
and propagates petitioner's religious Held: Yes. Any act that restrains speech is
beliefs, doctrines and practices often times accompanied with presumption of
in comparative studies with other invalidity. It is the burden of the
religions. Petitioner submitted to the respondent Board to overthrow this
respondent Board of Review for Moving presumption. If it fails to discharge this
Pictures and Television the VTR tapes of burden, its act of censorship will be struck
its TV program Series Nos. 116, 119, 121 down. This is true in this case. So-called
and 128. The Board classified the series as "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the
"X" or not for public viewing on the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other
ground that they "offend and constitute an religions. RTC’s ruling clearly suppresses
attack against other religions which is petitioner's freedom of speech and
expressly prohibited by law." On interferes with its right to free exercise of
November 28, 1992, it appealed to the religion. “attack” is different from
Office of the President the classification of “offend” any race or religion. The
its TV Series No. 128 which allowed it respondent Board may disagree with the
through a letter of former Executive criticisms of other religions by petitioner
Secretary Edelmiro A. Amante, Sr., but that gives it no excuse to interdict
addressed for Henrietta S. Mendez such criticisms, however, unclean they
reversing the decision of the respondent may be. Under our constitutional scheme,
Board. According to the letter the episode it is not the task of the State to favor any
in is protected by the constitutional religion by protecting it against an attack
guarantee of free speech and expression by another religion. Religious dogmas and
and no indication that the episode poses beliefs are often at war and to preserve
any clear and present danger. Petitioner peace among their followers, especially
also filed Civil Case. Petitioner alleged the fanatics, the establishment clause of
that the respondent Board acted without freedom of religion prohibits the State
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of from leaning towards any religion.
discretion in requiring petitioner to Respondent board cannot censor the
submit the VTR tapes of its TV program speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo
and in x-rating them. It cited its TV simply because it attacks other religions,
Program Series Nos. 115, 119, 121 and 128. even if said religion happens to be the
In their Answer, respondent Board most numerous church in our country.
invoked its power under PD No. 19861 in The basis of freedom of religion is
relation to Article 201 of the Revised Penal freedom of thought and it is best served
Code. The Iglesia ni Cristo insists on the by encouraging the marketplace of
literal translation of the bible and says that dueling ideas. It is only where it is
our (Catholic) veneration of the Virgin unavoidably necessary to prevent an
Mary is not to be condoned because immediate and grave danger to the
nowhere it is found in the bible. The board security and welfare of the community
contended that it outrages Catholic and that infringement of religious freedom
Protestant's beliefs. RTC ruled in favor of may be justified, and only to the smallest
petitioners. CA however reversed it hence extent necessary to avoid the danger.
this petition. There is no showing whatsoever of the
type of harm the tapes will bring about
especially the gravity and imminence of
the threatened harm. Prior restraint on
speech, including religious speech, cannot
be justified by hypothetical fears but only
by the showing of a substantive and
imminent evil. It is inappropriate to apply
the clear and present danger test to the
case at bar because the issue involves the
content of speech and not the time, place
or manner of speech. Allegedly, unless the
speech is first allowed, its impact cannot
be measured, and the causal connection
between the speech and the evil
apprehended cannot be established. The
determination of the question as to
whether or not such vilification,
exaggeration or fabrication falls within or
lies outside the boundaries of protected
speech or expression is a judicial function
which cannot be arrogated by an
administrative body such as a Board of
Censors." A system of prior restraint may
only be validly administered by judges
and not left to administrative agencies.

Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iglesia ni Cristo v.

You might also like