72742382 Legal Opinion Edited2

8/13/2019 72742382 Legal Opinion Edited2

1/8

LEGAL OPINION

To: Atty. Silvia Jo SabioFrom: Reymunneth Frances MangubatRe: People of the Philippines,Ang Kapatiran Party v. Mideo Cruz

Date: August 30, 0!!

Statement of Facts

"#ulo$, an art e%hibit at the &ultural &enter o' the (hili))ines *&&(+, re- criticisms'rom various &atholic grou)s a'ter a )articular image o' Mieo &ru/s "(oleteismo$sur'ace in the meia. The sai art installation constitutes icons an institutions, belie'systems an ieologies: mela an Ferinan, Mic1ey Mouse, Robert Ja-ors1i,sho-bi )ersonalities, the 2niversity o' the (hili))ines, activism, slogans, chants, se%an &atholicism. Subect to the conemnation is the religious image o' Jesus &hrist an

attache to it is the male genital )rotruing to-ar his 'ace. The male genital re)lica isra)e -ith the Rosary, hanging by the base an to) o' the re)lica. There is also asimilar religious image o' &hrist, -here 4is eyes are ar1ene by blac1 in1 -hicha))ears to 'lo- out 'rom the eyes. Along -ith the art-or1 is a cruci'i% an cross ra)e-ith a )in1, stretche5out conom6 various religious images an )ictures o' &hrist6 Marythe Mother o' &hrist, 4oly Family, saints, an the rosary 7 all closely surroune an)lace besie )ictures o' -omen -ho a))ear to be moeling 'or uner-ear or a s1in)rouct6 a )icture o' &hrist/s isci)les surrouning a ar1 silhouette o' &hrist in themile. Right above the 'acial )ortion o' the ar1 silhouette o' Jesus &hrist is a ra-ingresembling the icon o' Disney/s Mic1ey Mouse6 a religious statue o' &hrist seate anattache to the ti) o' 4is nose is a re ball. Above 4is hea is an im)ose )air o' re

ears the same as Mic1ey Mouse icon.

Most members o' the &atholic community allege that the "(oleteismo$ issacrilegious because o' the e%acting images that seemingly attac1 the &atholic religion.

A'ter an increasing number o' threats to )ersons an )ro)erty, the &&( ecie toclose "#ulo,$ earlier than the ate the e%hibit -as su))ose to en. Atty. Manuel Dayrito' the Ang #a)atiran )arty list 'ile a com)laint against the artist &ru 'or violating

Article 0! o' the Revise (enal &oe on immoral octrines, obscene )ublications ane%hibitions an inecent sho-s.

Issues

1.) 8hether or not &ru violate article 0! o' the Revise (enal &oe.

Brief Answer

As the art installation o' &ru -ent through a series o' test uner the rule o' Miller v.California, it -as ans-ere an establishe that the sai art )iece i not violate article0! o' the Revise (enal &oe.


2/8

Rules

!.+ Article 0! o' the Revise (enal &oe.+ Section 9, article 3 o' the !;< (hili))ine &onstitution3.) People v. Kottinger

4.) People v. Go Pin5.) People v. Padan6.) oth v. !nited "tates#.) Me$oirs v. Massa%hussets&.) Miller v. California

Discussion for the IssueThe 'ollo-ing are )unishable by la- uner article 0! o' the Revise (enal &oe onimmoral octrines, obscene )ublications an e%hibitions an inecent sho-s:!

!.+ Those -ho shall )ublicly e%)oun or )roclaim octrines o)enly contrary to )ublicmorals62.) The authors o' obscene literature, )ublishe -ith their 1no-lege in any 'orm6

the eitors )ublishing such literature6 an the o-ners=o)erators o' theestablishment selling the same6

3.+ Those -ho, in theaters, 'airs, cinematogra)hs or any other )lace, e%hibit,inecent or immoral )lays, scenes, acts or sho-s, -hether live or in 'ilm, -hichare )rescribe by virtue hereo', shall inclue those -hich *!+ glori'y criminals orconone crimes6 *+ serve no other )ur)ose but to satis'y the mar1et 'or violence,lust or )ornogra)hy6 *3+ o''en any race or religion6 *9+ ten to abet tra''ic in anuse o' )rohibite rugs6 an *>+ are contrary to la-, )ublic orer, morals, an

goo customs, establishe )olicies, la-'ul orers, ecrees an eicts64.) Those -ho shall sell, give a-ay or e%hibit 'ilms, )rints, engravings, scul)ture orliterature -hich are o''ensive to morals.

Article 0! covers matters mainly on the act o' "se%ual conuct.$To ans-er theissue at han, article 0! o' the Revise (enal &oe shoul be com)lementary to theiscussion on obscenity as one o' the un)rotecte s)eech uner section 9, article 3 o'the !;< &onstitution.

The latter )rovision )rovies that no la- shall be )asse abriging the 'reeom o's)eech, o' e%)ression, or o' the )ress, or the right o' the )eo)le )eaceably to assemblean )etition the government 'or reress o' grievances.3

1Reyes, L. The Revised Penal Code: Book II (2006).2Ibid.3Benas, !. The 1"#$ Cons%i%&%ion o' %he Re&li* o' %he Philiines: + Coen%ay,se*%ion 4, a%i*le 3 (200").


3/8

The )hrase "o' e%)ression$ is an aition -hich oes not a anything to e%istinguris)ruence shoul itsel' be inclusive o' various 'orms o' e%)ression -hichuris)ruence has )lace uner the s)eech an )ress clause.9

?oth historically an octrinally, 'reeom o' e%)ression has never been unerstoo tobe an absolute right. Moreover, as note in Chaplins'y v. (e *a$pshire:>"There arecertain -ell5e'ine an narro-ly limite classes o' s)eech, the )revention an)unishment o' -hich has never been thought to raise any &onstitutional )roblems.$ nother -ors, some 'orms o' s)eech are not )rotecte by the &onstitution.@

n the (hili))ines, there are t-o ty)es o' un)rotecte s)eech an they have in 'actreceive consierable attention 'rom the courts: libel an obscenity. Discovering thenorms 'or etermining -hat s)eech is libelous or -hat s)eech is obscene remains acom)licate tas1.


4/8

minor im)ortance.$The court 'urther sai that gain an )ro'it -oul a))ear to have beenthe main, i' not the e%clusive consieration in their e%hibition6 an it -oul not besur)rising i' the )ersons -ho -ent to see those )ictures an )ai entrance 'ees 'or the)rivilege o' oing so, -ere not e%actly artists an )ersons intereste in art an -hogenerally go to art e%hibitions an galleries to satis'y an im)rove their artistic tastes, but

rather )eo)le esirous o' satis'ying their morbi curiosity an taste, an lust, an 'or loveo' e%citement, incluing the youth -ho because o' their immaturity are not in a )osition toresist an shiel themselves 'rom the ill an )erverting e''ects o' these )ictures.!> naition, the Go Pincase recognie reeeming aesthetic values. t ienti'ies that thereare )eo)le -ho can )erceive "the element o' art$ an erive legitimate aesthetic"ins)iration in the sho-ing o' )ictures in the nue, or the human boy e%hibite in sheerna1eness as moels or in tableau% vivants.$!@There, ho-ever, the &ourt sto)s6 it oesnot say -hen allege art is really masCuerae )anering to the baser )assions.!, the 2.S. Su)reme &ourt ae a 'urther re'inement to the othAl+ertsrule. The &ourt o' A))eals ha u)hel the banning o' the French movie version o' 4.D.a-rence/s "ay &hatterly/s over$ because, although not obscene, it "alluringly)ortrays aultery as )ro)er behavior$ an as "right an esirable 'or certain )eo)leuner certain circumstances.$ The Su)reme &ourt acce)te these 'inings> butre'use to ban the movie. t i not agree -ith the holing o' the lo-er court that a)icture -hich avocates an iea "-hich is contrary to the moral stanars, the religious

1-Supra,no%e ".16Ibid.

1$Id.a% no%e ".1#Id. a% no%e 10.1"Id.a% no%e 3.20oth v. !nited States,3-4 ./. 4$6 (1"-$).21Ibid.22Id.a% no%e 20.23"as#ue$ v. Court o% &ppeals,.R. o. 11#"$1, /e%ee 1-, 1""".24Ibid.2-Kingsley Pi'tures v. N.(. egents,360 ./. 6#4 (1"-").


5/8

)rece)ts, an the legal coe o' the citienry$ coul be banne.@Mr. Justice Ste-art,-riting 'or the &ourt, sai:


6/8

o)inion then )ro)ose a revise test.39"The basic guielines 'or the trier o' 'acts mustbe: *a+ -hether "the average )erson, a))lying contem)orary community stanars$-oul 'in that the -or1, ta1en as a -hole, a))eals to the )rurient interest *b+ -hetherthe -or1 e)icts or escribes, in a )atently o''ensive -ay, se%ual conuct s)eci'icallye'ine by the a))licable state la-, an *c+ -hether the -or1, ta1en as a -hole, lac1s

serious literary, artistic, )olitical, or scienti'ic value.$

n aition to the 'ormulation o' a revise test 'or obscenity, Milleralso clari'ie themeaning o' "community stanars.$3> Miller sai that although "'unamental First

Amenment limitation on the )o-ers o' the State o not vary 'rom community tocommunity,this oes not mean that there are, or shoul or can be, 'i%e, uni'ormnational stanars o' )recisely -hat a))eals to the ")rurient interest$ or is ")atentlyo''ensive.$ To reCuire a State to structure obscenity )roceeings aroun evience o' anational "community stanar$ -oul be an e%ercise in 'utility.$3@

Application to the Facts of the Issue

The above iscussion on the issue at han has been com)lementary to that onobscenity as one o' the un)rotecte s)eeches uner section 9, article 3 o' the !;0"This argument misconceives -hat it is that the&onstitution )rotects. ts guarantee is not con'ine to the e%)ression o' ieas that areconventional or share by a maority. t )rotects avocacy o' the o)inion an in therealm o' ieas it )rotects e%)ression -hich is eloCuent no less than that -hich isunconvincing.$>!4ence, "(oleteismo$ shoul not be banne ust because it contraictsthe ieas that are conventional or share by a maority. The sai art installation oesnot even 'all uner obscenity. 8hether the art installation is sacrilegious or not, issomething beyon the realm o' un)rotecte s)eeches o' the state. n other -ors,

"(oleteismo,$ as an art an e%)ression, is still )rotecte by the State.

The last ste) is to a))ly the thir test in etermining -hether "(oleteismo$, ta1enas a -hole, lac1s serious literary, artistic, )olitical or scienti'ic value. An item may haveserious value in one or more o' these areas even though it )ortrays e%)licit se%ualconuct. "(oleteismo$ is e'initely not lac1ing, in 'act, it is even abunant o' the namevalues.

Conclusion

All three o' these tests must be met be'ore the material in Cuestion can be 'oun

to be obscene. ' any o' them is not met, the material -oul not be obscene -ithin themeaning o' the la-. As analye by using the three test o' Miller v. California,"(oleteismo$ is absolutely not obscene. 8hether the sai art installation is sacrilegiousor not, it oesn/t 'all uner the category o' un)rotecte s)eeches or o' e%)ression as)rovie in section 9, article 3 o' the !;< &onstitution. There'ore, "(oleteismo$ is not)unishable by la- uner article 0! o' the Revise (enal &oe.

4"Id.a% no%e 2-.-0Id.a% no%e 2$.-1Ibid.

72742382 Legal Opinion Edited2

Documents

Transcript of 72742382 Legal Opinion Edited2