THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 155282. January 17, 2005.]

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION

BOARD (MTRCB), petitioner, vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING
CORPORATION and LOREN LEGARDA, respondents.

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J : p

For our resolution is the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, filed by petitioner Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) against ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation (ABS-CBN) and former Senator Loren Legarda, respondents,
assailing the (a) Decision dated November 18, 1997, 1 and (b) Order dated
August 26, 2002 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, in Civil
Case No. Q-93-16052.
The facts are undisputed.

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 in the evening, respondent ABS-CBN aired

"Prosti-tuition," an episode of the television (TV) program "The Inside Story"
produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the
course of the program, student prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty
members were interviewed. The Philippine Women's University (PWU) was
named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU
Building at Taft Avenue, Manila conspicuously served as the background of the
episode.
The showing of "The Inside Story" caused uproar in the PWU community.
Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU
Parents and Teachers Association filed letter-complaints 3 with petitioner
MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched the name of
the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students. CSIHDA

Acting on the letter-complaints, the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a

formal complaint with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among
others, that respondents (1) did not submit "The Inside Story" to petitioner for
its review and (2) exhibited the same without its permission, thus, violating
Section 7 4 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1986 5 and Section 3, 6 Chapter III
and Section 7, 7 Chapter IV of the MTRCB Rules and Regulations. 8
In their answer, 9 respondents explained that the "The Inside Story" is a
"public affairs program, news documentary and socio-political editorial," the
airing of which is protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 expression and of the press. Accordingly, petitioner has no power, authority and
jurisdiction to impose any form of prior restraint upon respondents.
On February 5, 1993, after hearing and submission of the parties'
memoranda, the MTRCB Investigating Committee rendered a Decision, the
decretal portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the aforementioned premises, the respondents
are ordered to pay the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00)
for non-submission of the program, subject of this case for review and
approval of the MTRCB.

Heretofore, all subsequent programs of the 'The Inside Story' and

all other programs of the ABS-CBN Channel 2 of the same category
shall be submitted to the Board of Review and Approval before
showing; otherwise the Board will act accordingly." 10

On appeal, the Office of Atty. Henrietta S. Mendez, Chairman of the

MTRCB, issued a Decision dated March 12, 1993 affirming the above ruling of
its Investigating Committee. 11 Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration
but was denied in a Resolution dated April 14, 1993. 12
Respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77, Quezon City. It seeks to: (1) declare as
unconstitutional Sections 3(b), 13 3(c), 14 3(d), 15 4, 16 7, 17 and 11 18 of P.D. No.
1986 and Sections 3, 19 7, 20 and 28 21 (a) of the MTRCB Rules and Regulations;
22 (2) (in the alternative) exclude the "The Inside Story" from the coverage of
the above cited provisions; and (3) annul and set aside the MTRCB Decision
dated March 12, 1993 and Resolution dated April 14, 1993. Respondents
averred that the above-cited provisions constitute "prior restraint" on
respondents' exercise of freedom of expression and of the press, and,
therefore, unconstitutional. Furthermore, the above cited provisions do not
apply to the "The Inside Story" because it falls under the category of "public
affairs program, news documentary, or socio-political editorials" governed by
standards similar to those governing newspapers. DaACIH

On November 18, 1997, the RTC rendered a Decision 23 in favor of

respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby
rendered:

1. ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE the assailed Decision and

Resolution of MTRCB dated March 12, 1993;
2. DECLARING AND DECREEING that Sections 3 (b), (c), and (d),
4, 7, and 11 of P.D. No. 1 986 and Sections 3, 7, 28 (a) of its
Implementing Rules do not cover the TV Program "The Inside Story"
and other similar programs, they being public affairs programs which
can be equated to newspapers; and

3. MAKING PERMANENT the Injunction against Respondents or all

persons acting in their behalf.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 SO ORDERED."

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. 24

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner MTRCB through the Solicitor General, contends inter alia: first,
all television programs, including "public affairs programs, news
documentaries, or socio-political editorials," are subject to petitioner's power of
review under Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 1986 and pursuant to this Court's ruling in
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals; 25 second, television programs are more
accessible to the public than newspapers, thus, the liberal regulation of the
latter cannot apply to the former; third, petitioner's power to review television
programs under Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 1986 does not amount to "prior
restraint;" and fourth, Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 1986 does not violate
respondents' constitutional freedom of expression and of the press.
Respondents take the opposite stance. HCTaAS

The issue for our resolution is whether the MTRCB has the power or
authority to review the "The Inside Story" prior to its exhibition or broadcast by
television.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The present controversy brings into focus the provisions of Section 3 of
P.D. No. 1986, partly reproduced as follows:
"SEC. 3. Powers and Functions . — The BOARD shall have the
following functions, powers and duties:

xxx xxx xxx

b) To screen, review and examine all motion pictures as herein

defined, television programs, including publicity materials such as
advertisements, trailers and stills, whether such motion pictures and
publicity materials be for theatrical or non-theatrical distribution, for
television broadcast or for general viewing, imported or produced in
the Philippines, and in the latter case, whether they be for local viewing
or for export.
c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from
and/or prohibit the importation, exportation, production, copying,
distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of the
motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials subject of
the preceding paragraph, which, in the judgment of the BOARD
applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are
objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good
customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or
its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission
of violence or of a wrong or crime, such as but not limited to:

xxx xxx xxx

d) To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale,
lease, exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures,
television programs and publicity materials, to the end and that no
such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the
BOARD to be objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof
shall be imported, exported, produced, copied, reproduced, distributed,
sold, leased, exhibited and/or broadcast by television; DcaSIH

xxx xxx xxx."

Vis-a-vis the foregoing provisions, our task is to decide whether or not

petitioner has the power to review the television program "The Inside Story."
The task is not Herculean because it merely resurrects this Court En Banc's
ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals. 26 There, the Iglesia ni Cristo
sought exception from petitioner's review power contending that the term
"television programs" under Sec. 3(b) does not include "religious programs"
which are protected under Section 5, Article III of the Constitution. 27 This Court,
through Justice Reynato Puno, categorically ruled that P.D. No. 1986 gives
petitioner "the power to screen, review and examine "all television programs,"
emphasizing the phrase "all television programs," thus:
"The law gives the Board the power to screen, review and
examine all ‘television programs.' By the clear terms of the law, the
Board has the power to 'approve, delete . . . and/or prohibit the . . .
exhibition and/or television broadcast of . . . television programs . . . .'
The law also directs the Board to apply 'contemporary Filipino cultural
values as standard' to determine those which are objectionable for
being 'immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs,
injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines and its
people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of
violence or of a wrong or crime.'"

Settled is the rule in statutory construction that where the law does not
make any exception, courts may not except something therefrom, unless there
is compelling reason apparent in the law to justify it. 28 Ubi lex non distinguit
nec distinguere debemos . Thus, when the law says "all television programs,"
the word " all" covers all television programs, whether religious, public affairs,
news documentary, etc. 29 The principle assumes that the legislative body
made no qualification in the use of general word or expression. 30

It then follows that since "The Inside Story" is a television program, it is

within the jurisdiction of the MTRCB over which it has power of review.

Here, respondents sought exemption from the coverage of the term

"television programs" on the ground that the "The Inside Story" is a "public
affairs program, news documentary and socio-political editorial" protected
under Section 4, 31 Article III of the Constitution. Albeit, respondent's basis is
not freedom of religion, as in Iglesia ni Cristo, 32 but freedom of expression and
of the press, the ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo applies squarely to the instant issue. It
is significant to note that in Iglesia ni Cristo, this Court declared that freedom of
religion has been accorded a preferred status by the framers of our
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 fundamental laws, past and present, "designed to protect the broadest possible
liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs . . .
." Yet despite the fact that freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred
status, still this Court, did not exempt the Iglesia ni Cristo's religious program
from petitioner's review power. EaIDAT

Respondents claim that the showing of "The Inside Story" is protected by

the constitutional provision on freedom of speech and of the press. However,
there has been no declaration at all by the framers of the Constitution that
freedom of expression and of the press has a preferred status.

If this Court, in Iglesia ni Cristo, did not exempt religious programs from
the jurisdiction and review power of petitioner MTRCB, with more reason, there
is no justification to exempt therefrom " The Inside Story" which, according to
respondents, is protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of
expression and of the press, a freedom bearing no preferred status.

The only exceptions from the MTRCB's power of review are those
expressly mentioned in Section 7 of P.D. No. 1986, such as (1) television
programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its
departments and agencies, and (2) newsreels. Thus:
"SEC. 7. Unauthorized showing or exhibition. — It shall be
unlawful for any person or entity to exhibit or cause to be exhibited in
any moviehouse, theatre, or public place or by television within the
Philippines any motion picture, television program or publicity material,
including trailers, and stills for lobby displays in connection with motion
pictures, not duly authorized by the owner or his assignee and passed
by the BOARD; or to print or cause to be printed on any motion picture
to be exhibited in any theater or public place or by television a label or
notice showing the same to have been officially passed by the BOARD
when the same has not been previously authorized, except motion
pictures, television programs or publicity material imprinted or
exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departments and
agencies, and newsreels." DTEIaC

Still in a desperate attempt to be exempted, respondents contend that

the "The Inside Story" falls under the category of newsreels.
Their contention is unpersuasive.

P.D. No. 1986 does not define "newsreels." Webster's dictionary defines
newsreels as short motion picture films portraying or dealing with current
events. 33 A glance at actual samples of newsreels shows that they are mostly
reenactments of events that had already happened. Some concrete examples
are those of Dziga Vertov's Russian Kino-Pravda newsreel series (Kino-Pravda
means literally "film-truth," a term that was later translated literally into the
French cinema verite) and Frank Capra's Why We Fight series. 34 Apparently,
newsreels are straight presentation of events. They are depiction of
"actualities." Correspondingly, the MTRCB Rules and Regulations 35
implementing P.D. No. 1986 define newsreels as "straight news reporting, as
distinguished from news analyses, commentaries and opinions. Talk shows on a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 given issue are not considered newsreels. " 36 Clearly, the "The Inside Story"
cannot be considered a newsreel. It is more of a public affairs program which is
described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television news
and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of opinions. 37
Certainly, such kind of program is within petitioner's review power.
It bears stressing that the sole issue here is whether petitioner MTRCB has
authority to review "The Inside Story." Clearly, we are not called upon to
determine whether petitioner violated Section 4, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
Constitution providing that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of oppression or the press. Petitioner did not disapprove or ban the
showing of the program. Neither did it cancel respondents' permit.
Respondents were merely penalized for their failure to submit to petitioner "The
Inside Story" for its review and approval. Therefore, we need not resolve
whether certain provisions of P.D. No. 1986 and the MTRCB Rules and
Regulations specified by respondents contravene the Constitution.

Consequently, we cannot sustain the RTC's ruling that Sections 3(c) (d), 4,
7 and 11 of P.D. No. 1986 and Sections 3, 7 and 28 (a) of the MTRCB Rules and
Regulations are unconstitutional. It is settled that no question involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and
decided by the court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for
judicial inquiry, namely: (1) that the question must be raised by the proper
party; (2) that there must be an actual case or controversy; (3) that the
question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and, (4) that the
decision on the constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself . 38
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Decision
dated November 18, 1997 and Order dated August 26, 2002 are hereby
REVERSED. The Decision dated March 12, 1993 of petitioner MTRCB is
AFFIRMED. Costs against respondents. DCASEc

SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Corona, Carpio Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Judge Normandie B. Pizarro, Rollo at 73-81.

2. Id. at 86-91.
3. Dated October 28, 1991.
4. "SECTION 7. Unauthorized showing or exhibition. — It shall be unlawful for any
person or entity to exhibit or cause to be exhibited in any moviehouse,
theater or public place or television within the Philippines any motion picture,
television program or publicity material, including trailers, and stills for lobby
displays in connection with motion pictures, not duly authorized by the
owner or is assignee and passed by the BOARD; or to print or cause to be
printed on any motion picture to be exhibited in any theater or public place
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 or by television a label or notice showing the same to have been officially
passed by the BOARD when the same has not been previously authorized,
except motion pictures, television programs or publicity material imprinted or
exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departments and
agencies, and newsreels."
5. "Creating the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board."

6. "SECTION 3. MATTERS SUBJECT TO REVIEW — All motion pictures, television

programs and publicity materials, as defined in Chapter 1 hereof, whether
these be for theatrical or non-theatrical distribution, for television broadcast
or general viewing, imported or produced in the Philippines, and in the latter
case, whether they be for local viewing or for export, shall be subject to
review by the BOARD before they are exported, imported, copied,
distributed, sold, leased, exhibited or broadcast by television;"
7. "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 broadcast by television without
prior permit issued by the BOARD after review of the motion picture,
television program or publicity material."
8. Approved on July 27, 1993.

9. Dated November 18, 1991.

10. Annex "D" at 1, Petition, Rollo at 92.
11. Rollo at 92-99.
12. Id. at 100-106.
13. b) To screen, review and examine all motion pictures as herein defined,
television programs, including publicity materials such as advertisements,
trailers and stills, whether such motion pictures and publicity materials be for
theatrical or non-theatrical distribution, for television broadcast or for general
viewing, imported or produced in the Philippines, and in the latter case,
whether they be for local viewing or for export;
14. c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit
the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease,
exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television
programs and publicity materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which,
in the judgment of the board applying contemporary Filipino cultural values
as standard, are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law
and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the
Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the
commission of violence or of a wrong or crime, such as but not limited to:
15. d) To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for the
importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease,
exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television
programs and publicity materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs
and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in
accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be imported, exported, produced,
copied, reproduced, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited and/or broadcast by
television;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 16. "SECTION 4. Decision. — The decision of the BOARD either approving or
disapproving for exhibition in the Philippines a motion picture, television
program, still and other pictorial advertisement submitted to it for
examination and review must be rendered within a period of ten (10) days
which shall be counted from the date of receipt by the BOARD of an
application for the purpose, together with motion picture, television program,
still or other pictorial advertisement to be reviewed."

17. Supra.
18. "SECTION 11. Penalty . — Any person who violates the provisions of this Decree
and/or the implementing rules and regulations issued by the BOARD, shall,
upon conviction, be punished by a mandatory penalty of three (3) months
and one day to one (1) year imprisonment plus a fine of not less than fifty
thousand pesos. The penalty shall apply whether the person shall have
committed the violation either as principal, accomplice or accessory. If the
offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately. The license to operate
the moviehouse, theater, or television station shall also be revoked. Should
the offense be committed by a juridical person, the chairman, the president,
secretary, treasurer, or the partner responsible therefore, shall be the
persons penalized."

19. Supra.
20. "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 broadcast by television without
prior permit issued by the BOARD after review of the motion picture,
television program or publicity material."
21. "SECTION 28. OFFENSES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES — Without prejudice
to the institution of appropriate criminal action, violations of the laws and
rules governing motion pictures, television programs, and related publicity
materials shall be administratively penalized with suspension or cancellation
of permits and licenses issued by the BOARD, depending on the gravity of the
offense or in lieu thereof, the Chairman of the BOARD or the Hearing and
Adjudication Committee, in his or its discretion, allow the payment of an
administrative fine by the guilty party. The imposition of the administrative
penalties for violation of Presidential Decree 1986 of its rules shall be in
accordance with the table of penalties duly promulgated by the BOARD."

22. Approved on December 19, 1985.

23. Rollo at 73-81.
24. RTC Order dated August 26, 2002, Rollo at 82-85.
25. G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 529.
26. Supra.

27. "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 28. Tolentino vs. Catoy, 82 Phil. 300 (1948).
29. See Olfato vs. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 52749, March 31, 1981, 103
SCRA 741.
30. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, Third Edition, 1995, at 153.
31. "SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances."
32. Supra.
33. Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993 Phil. Copyright).
34. Documentary Film, Wikipedia Encyclopedia, December 21, 2004,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film.
The newsreel tradition is an important tradition in documentary film; newsreels
were also sometimes staged but were usually reenactments of events that
had already happened, not attempts to steer events as they were in the
process of happening. For instance, much of the battle footage from the early
20th century was staged — the cameramen would usually arrive on site after
a major battle and reenact scenes to film them.
In the Kino-Pravda series, Vertov focused on everyday experiences, eschewing
bourgeois concerns and filming marketplaces, bars, and schools instead,
sometimes with a hidden camera, without asking permission first. The stories
were typically descriptive, not narrative, and included vignettes and exposes,
showing for instance the renovation of a trolley system, the organization of
farmers into communes, and the trial of Social Revolutionaries; one story
shows starvation in the nascent Marxist state. Vertov's driving vision was to
capture "film-truth" — that is, fragments of actuality, which when organized
together, have a deeper truth that cannot be seen with the naked eye. (Dziga
Vertov, Wikipedia Encyclopedia, December 21, 2004,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dziga-Vertov.)

35. Promulgated on August 22, 1993.

36. Section 1(m), Chapter I, 1993 Implementing Rules and Regulations.
37. TSN, September 2, 1994 at 13-14; see Rollo at 159.
38. Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority , G.R. No. 107921, July 1, 1993, 224
SCRA 236.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com