FINALS- Media Law: Review of Cases by Atty. Solis

7/31/2019 FINALS- Media Law: Review of Cases by Atty. Solis

1/10

CASES


2/10

MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN

FACTS:

On October 15, 1991, at 10:45 pm, respondent ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the TVprogram The Inside Story produced and hosted

by respondent Legarda.

In the course of the program, student prostitutes,

customers, and faculty members were interviewed,and Philippine Womens University (PWU) wasnamed as the school of some of the studentsinvolved.


3/10

Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trusteeof the PWU and PWU-PTA filed letter-complaintswith petitioner MTRCB.

Respondents explained that The Inside Story is apublic affairs program, news documentary, and

socio-political editorial, and that the airing ofwhich is protected by the constitutional provisionof freedom of expression and of the press.

On November 18, 1997, the RTC rendered aDecision in favour of the respondents.


4/10

Petitioner contended that:

1. All TV programs are subject to petitionerspower of review under Section 3(b) of PD No.1986.

2. Petitioners power to review television programsunder Section 3(b) of PD No. 1986 does notamount to prior restraint.

3. Section 3(b) of PD No. 1986 does not violaterespondents constitutional freedom of expressionand of the press.


5/10

ISSUE:

Whether or not the MTRCB has thepower or authority to review the TheInside Story prior to its exhibition or

broadcast by television.


6/10

RESOLUTION:

YES. The law gives the Board the power toscreen, review, and examine all TV programs.When the law says all TV programs, theword all covers all TV programs, whether

religious, public affairs, news documentary,etc.

Decision dated November 18, 1997 in favourof the respondents and Order dated August26, 2002 are hereby REVERSED. Cost againstrespondents.


7/10

GONZALES vs KATIGBAK

FACTS:

Petitioner is Jose Antonio U. Gonzales, President ofMalaya Films, while the respondent is Board ofReview for Motion Pictures and Television, with

Maria Kalaw Katigbak as its Chairman.

In resolution of a sub-committee of respondent

Board of October 23, 1984, a permit to exhibit thefilm Kapit sa Patalim under the classification ForAdults Only, with certain changes and deletionswas granted.


8/10

A motion for reconsideration was filed by thepetitioners stating that the classification of the filmFor Adults Only was without basis and isexercised as impermissible restraint of artisticexpression.

Respondent further stated that the petitioner has anoption to have the film reclassified to For-General-Patronage if it would agree to remove the obscenescenes and pare down the violence in the film.

Petitioner, however, refused the For Adults Onlyclassification and instead filed a suit for certiorari.


9/10

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was graveabuse of discretion in theclassification of Kapit sa Patalim as

For-Adults-Only.


10/10

RESOLUTION:

The Court dismisses the petition forcertiorari solely on the ground thatthere are not enough votes for aruling that there was grave abuse of

discretion in the classification ofKapit sa Patalim as For-Adults-Only.

FINALS- Media Law: Review of Cases by Atty. Solis

Documents

Transcript of FINALS- Media Law: Review of Cases by Atty. Solis