3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 514

VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 5, 2007 191

GMA Network, Inc. vs. Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board

*
G.R. No. 148579. February 5, 2007.

GMA NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs. MOVIE AND

TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD,
respondent.

Mass Media; Freedom of the Press; Movie and Television

Review and Classification Board (MTRCB); The Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) is
empowered to screen, review and examine all motion pictures and
television programs including publicity materials.—Section 3 of
PD 1986 empowers the MTRCB to screen, review and examine all
motion pictures, television programs including publicity
materials. This power of prior review is highlighted in its Rules
and Regulations, particularly Section 7 thereof, which reads:
SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR REVIEW.—No motion
picture, television program or related publicity material shall be
imported, exported, produced, copied, distributed, sold, leased,
exhibited or broadcasted by television without prior permit issued
by the BOARD after review of the motion picture, television
program or publicity material. The only exemptions from the
MTRCB’s power of review are those expressly mentioned in
Section 7, such as (1) television programs imprinted or exhibited
by the Philippine Government and/or departments and agencies,
and (2) newsreels.

Same; Same; Same; A public affairs program—described as a

variety of news treatment, a cross between pure television news
and

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

192

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781bedaba7a4bb6bae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 514

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

GMA Network, Inc. vs. Movie and Television Review and

Classification Board

news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of opinions

—is within the Movie and Television Review and Classification
Board’s (MTRCB’s) power of review.—On the other hand,
petitioner claims that “Muro Ami: The Making” was a public
affairs program. Even if that were so, our resolution of this issue
would not change. This Court has already ruled that a public
affairs program—described as a variety of news treatment; a cross
between pure television news and news-related commentaries,
analysis and/or exchange of opinions—is within the MTRCB’s
power of review. Clearly, “Muro Ami: The Making” (which
petitioner claims to be a public affairs program) was well within
the purview of MTRCB’s power of prior review.

Same; Same; Same; Administrative Law; Right to

Information; Administrative issuances which are not published or
filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register
(ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center are
ineffective and may not be enforced; Memorandum Circular No.
98-17, which provides for the penalties for the first, second and
third offenses for exhibiting programs without valid permit to
exhibit, has not been registered with the ONAR as of 27 January
2000—petitioner TV company was not bound by said circular and
should not have been meted the sanction provided therein.—While
MTRCB had jurisdiction over the subject program, Memorandum
Circular 98-17, which was the basis of the suspension order, was
not binding on petitioner. The Administrative Code of 1987,
particularly Section 3 thereof, expressly requires each agency to
file with the Office of the National Administrative Register
(ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center three
certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Administrative
issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are
ineffective and may not be enforced. Memorandum Circular No.
98-17, which provides for the penalties for the first, second and
third offenses for exhibiting programs without valid permit to
exhibit, has not been registered with the ONAR as of January 27,
2000. Hence, the same is yet to be effective. It is thus
unenforceable since it has not been filed in the ONAR.
Consequently, petitioner was not bound by said circular and
should not have been meted the sanction provided thereunder.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781bedaba7a4bb6bae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 514

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

193

VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 5, 2007 193

GMA Network, Inc. vs. Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board

     Belo, Gozon, Parel, Asuncion and Lucila for petitioner.

     The Solicitor General for respondent.

CORONA, J.:

Subject of this petition for review under 1Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court is the June 18, 2001 decision of the Court
2
of
Appeals (CA) affirming the January 7, 2000 order of
respondent Movie and Television Review and Classification
Board (MTRCB) which read:

“In view thereof, the BOARD, by the undersigned, hereby imposes

the administrative penalty of SUSPENSION FROM
AIRING/BROADCASTING any program on EMC Channel 27 for
a period of seven (7) days which period shall commence
immediately upon receipt of this Order. Your failure to comply
with this ORDER shall be construed by the BOARD as defiance
on your part of a lawful order of the BOARD.”

The facts follow.

Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages
the UHF television station, EMC Channel 27. On January
7, 2000, respondent MTRCB issued an order of suspension
against petitioner for airing “Muro Ami: The Making”
without first securing
3
a permit from it as provided in
Section 7 of PD 1986.

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Teodoro P. Regino (now retired) and

concurred in by Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (now retired)
and Josefina Guevara-Salonga of the Special Ninth Division of the Court
of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 38-51.
2 Signed by then Chairman Armida P.E. Siguion-Reyna, Rollo, p. 81.
3 Sec. 7. … [It is] unlawful for any person or entity to exhibit or cause to
be exhibited xxx by television within the Philippines any motion picture,
television program xxx not duly authorized xxx and passed by the Board.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781bedaba7a4bb6bae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 514

GMA Network, Inc. vs. Movie and Television Review and

Classification Board

The penalty of suspension was based on 4

Memorandum
Circular 98-17 dated December 15, 1998 which provided
for the penalties for exhibiting a program without a valid
permit from the MTRCB.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the suspension
order and, at the same time, informed MTRCB that
Channel 27 had complied with the suspension order by
going off the air since midnight of January 11, 2000. It also
filed a letterprotest which was merely “noted” by the
MTRCB thereby, in effect, denying both the motion for
reconsideration and letterprotest.
Petitioner then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari
which was dismissed in the now assailed June 18, 2001
decision. The January 7, 2000 suspension order issued by
MTRCB was affirmed in toto.
Hence, this recourse.
The pivotal issues for our resolution are:

(1) whether the MTRCB has the power or authority to

review the show “Muro Ami: The Making” prior to
its broadcast by television and
(2) whether Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was
enforceable and binding on petitioner.
5
First, Section 3 of PD 1986 empowers the MTRCB to
screen, review and examine all motion pictures, television
programs including publicity materials. This power of prior
review is highlighted in its Rules and Regulations,
particularly Section 7 thereof, which reads:

“SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR REVIEW.—No motion

picture, television program or related publicity material shall be
imported, exported, produced, copied, distributed, sold, leased,
exhibited or broadcasted by television without prior permit issued
by

_______________

4 CA Records, p. 84.
5 “Creating the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board.”

195

VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 5, 2007 195

GMA Network, Inc. vs. Movie and Television Review and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781bedaba7a4bb6bae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 514

Classification Board

the BOARD after review of the motion picture, television program

or publicity material.

The only exemptions from the MTRCB’s power 6

of review
are those expressly mentioned in Section 7, such as (1)
television programs imprinted or exhibited by the
Philippine Government and/or departments and agencies,
and (2) newsreels.
According to the CA, the subject program was a publicity
for the movie, “Muro Ami.” In adopting this finding, we
hold that “Muro Ami: The Making,” did not fall under any
of the exemptions and was therefore within the power of
review of MTRCB.
On the other hand, petitioner claims that 7
“Muro Ami:
The Making” was a public affairs program. Even if that
were so, our resolution of this issue would not change. This
Court has already ruled that a public affairs program --
described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between
pure television news and news-related commentaries,
analysis and/or exchange 8of opinions—is within the
MTRCB’s power of review. Clearly, “Muro Ami: The
Making” (which petitioner claims to be a public affairs
program) was well within the purview of MTRCB’s power
of prior review.
However, while MTRCB had jurisdiction over the
subject program, Memorandum Circular 98-17, which was
the basis of the suspension order, was not binding on
petitioner. The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly
Section 3 thereof, expressly requires each agency to file
with the Office of the National Administrative Register
(ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center
three certified copies of every rule adopted by it.
Administrative issuances which are not pub-

_______________

6 PD 1986.
7 Petition for review, Rollo, p. 20.
8 Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) v.
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 155282, 17 January 2005,
448 SCRA 575.

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

GMA Network, Inc. vs. Movie and Television Review and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781bedaba7a4bb6bae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 514

Classification Board

lished or filed
9
with the ONAR are ineffective and may not
be enforced.
Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, which provides for the
penalties for the first, second and third offenses for
exhibiting programs without valid permit to exhibit, has
not been
10
registered with the ONAR as of January
11
27,
2000. Hence, the same is yet to be effective. It is thus 12
unenforceable since it has not been filed in the ONAR.
Consequently, petitioner was not bound by said circular
and should not have been meted the sanction provided
thereunder.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated
June 18, 2001, insofar as it affirmed the public respondent
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board’s
jurisdiction over “Muro Ami: The Making,” is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the suspension
order issued against petitioner GMA Network, Inc.
pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 is hereby
declared null and void.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez,

Azcuna and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Petition partially granted, judgment affirmed with

modification.

_______________

9 Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law, Central Lawbook Publishing,

Inc., Quezon City (2003), p. 62. See also Philsa International Placement
and Service Corporation v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor, et al., G.R. No.
103144, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 174.
10 Per certification issued by the ONAR dated January 27, 2000, Rollo,
p. 106.
11 The fact that Memorandum Circular 98-17 was not filed with ONAR
was not disputed by the MTRCB.
12 Phil. Association of Service Exporters v. Torres, G.R. No. 101279, 6
August 1992, 212 SCRA 298.

197

VOL. 514, FEBRUARY 5, 2007 197

Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino R. Briones
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781bedaba7a4bb6bae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
3/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 514

Notes.—When confronted with libel cases involving

publications which deal with public officials and the
discharge of their official functions, the Supreme Court is
not confined within the wordings of the libel statute—
rather, the case should likewise be examined under the
constitutional precept of freedom of the press. (Flor vs.
People, 454 SCRA 440 [2005])
The best gauge of a free and democratic society rests in
the degree of freedom enjoyed by its media. (David vs.
Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 [2006])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001781bedaba7a4bb6bae003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7