G.R. No. 119673
July 26, 1996
Facts
The Board for Motion Pictures and Television (now, MTRCB) x-rated the TV Program “Ang Iglesia Ni Kristo” since they “offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law.”
The trial court dismissed the case which was reversed by the CA. It provides that the Board has jurisdiction to review the program and that the pre-recorded tapes offend and constitute an attack against other religion. Hence, this appeal.
Issue
- Whether or not the Board has a right to review the petitioner’s program?
- Whether or not the x-rating of the TV program because it attacks other religion offends the free-exercise clause?
Held
First Issue
Yes. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on one’s belief.
Freedom to act on one’s belief presupposes that where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. Religious freedom can be enjoyed only with a proper regard for the rights of others. It is error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare. The inherent police power can be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society.
Exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare.
In this case, the respondent Board has the right to review petitioner’s program. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children.
Second Issue
No. First, any act that restraints the freedom of speech offends the Constitution. Any act restraining speech is presumed invalid which the respondent Board failed to overthrow.
Second, the evidence shows that the attack are mere criticisms of other religions. The act of respondent Board suppresses petitioner’s freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. Even if the Board may disagree with the criticisms, they have no right to interdict such even how unclean it may be.
Third, the ground that it “attacks other religion” is not one of the ground to justify an order prohibiting the broadcast of petitioner’s television program under Section 3 of PD No. 1986.
Fourth, the respondent failed to apply the clear and present danger rule in x-rating the program. Moreover, “The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. In this case, 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 which has taken the life of a reality already on ground.
Lastly, the system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies.