Topic: Obscenity and Pornography under the Freedom of Speech and Expression (Bill of Rights)
1. Constitutional Framework
The Bill of Rights, enshrined in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, guarantees the right to freedom of speech, expression, and of the press under Section 4. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations. One of these limitations pertains to obscenity and pornography.
2. Freedom of Speech and Expression
The general rule is that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that plays a crucial role in maintaining a democratic society. It ensures the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and artistic expression, allowing individuals to engage in political, social, and cultural discourse. However, this right is not without restrictions. The government may impose limitations in specific instances, particularly when the exercise of this right conflicts with other societal interests or rights, such as public morals and order.
3. Obscenity and Pornography Defined
In Philippine jurisprudence, obscenity is not precisely defined by law but has been shaped by case law. The general test for obscenity comes from American jurisprudence, particularly the Miller test (Miller v. California, 1973), which has influenced the Philippine legal system:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest;
- Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Pornography, on the other hand, refers to materials designed to elicit or exhibit sexual desire, generally categorized as sexually explicit or provocative content. While not all pornography is deemed obscene, it can still be regulated depending on the circumstances and societal norms.
4. Tests for Determining Obscenity in Philippine Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has addressed obscenity in several landmark cases:
a. People v. Kottinger (1923)
In this case, the Supreme Court adopted the "Hicklin test" from English law. This test defined obscenity based on whether the material tends to corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences. The Kottinger ruling established that content could be judged based on its potential to deprave or corrupt.
b. Pita v. Court of Appeals (1989)
The Court in this case emphasized that the community standard should be applied in determining obscenity. The determination must consider the material's impact on the general public and not on an isolated group of individuals who might be more susceptible to immoral influences.
c. Fernando v. Court of Appeals (1995)
This case reiterated the importance of contemporary community standards in judging obscenity. The Court clarified that what is obscene in one community may not be considered obscene in another. Thus, local standards are key in determining what constitutes obscenity.
d. Soriano v. Laguardia (2010)
The Supreme Court ruled that the regulation of broadcast material that may be deemed obscene or offensive to public morals is permissible. It upheld the authority of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) to regulate television programs, including content that may be sexually suggestive or offensive to public morality.
5. Regulation of Obscenity and Pornography
While there is no specific law that codifies the definition of obscenity in the Philippines, various laws regulate its proliferation and distribution:
a. Revised Penal Code (RPC)
- Article 201 (Immoral doctrines, obscene publications, and exhibitions and indecent shows): This article penalizes anyone who distributes, exhibits, or sells obscene materials, including writings, films, pictures, and other forms of media. It also prohibits indecent shows and the distribution of publications that offend public morals.
- The penalty includes imprisonment or a fine, depending on the severity of the offense.
b. Special Laws
- Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act): This law prohibits the employment of children in obscene publications and indecent shows. It also protects children from being subjected to acts of lasciviousness.
- Republic Act No. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009): This law criminalizes the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. It also provides specific mechanisms for reporting and prosecuting offenders, while mandating the protection of children involved.
c. Administrative Agencies
- Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB): The MTRCB is tasked with reviewing and classifying television programs and movies. The agency has the authority to prevent the exhibition of films or shows deemed obscene, indecent, or offensive to public morals.
- Optical Media Board (OMB): The OMB regulates the production, distribution, and sale of optical media (e.g., DVDs, CDs) containing obscene or pornographic content.
6. International Law Considerations
The Philippines, as a signatory to various international agreements, must also balance its regulation of obscenity and pornography with international norms:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees the right to freedom of expression. However, international human rights law also recognizes that this freedom can be restricted to protect public morals.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): The ICCPR, to which the Philippines is a party, also guarantees freedom of expression but allows restrictions when necessary to respect the rights and reputation of others, as well as public order, health, or morals (Article 19(3)).
7. Key Jurisprudence on Balancing Free Speech and Obscenity
Philippine jurisprudence has long struggled to balance the constitutional right to freedom of expression with the need to regulate obscenity:
a. Gonzales v. Katigbak (1985)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the test for obscenity must be applied with care, emphasizing the importance of context in assessing whether a material is obscene. The Court ruled that a film that merely depicted nudity or sexual content could not automatically be deemed obscene; instead, the film's overall message and artistic value must be considered.
b. Chavez v. Gonzales (2008)
Although not directly on obscenity, this case reinforced the high value placed on free speech, especially in the context of political discourse. The Court emphasized that any prior restraint on speech or expression, such as censorship, must be viewed with suspicion and subjected to strict scrutiny.
8. Conclusion: Balancing Rights and Morality
The regulation of obscenity and pornography in the Philippines remains a complex issue, requiring a delicate balance between protecting public morals and upholding the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The Supreme Court, while respecting constitutional freedoms, consistently applies community standards and emphasizes the importance of context in determining what constitutes obscene material. Moreover, the State's regulatory bodies, such as the MTRCB and OMB, play a significant role in policing the dissemination of obscene content.
In all cases, the Philippine legal system strives to ensure that restrictions on freedom of expression, particularly in matters of obscenity and pornography, are limited to what is necessary to protect public morals, uphold the welfare of children, and maintain order within society. However, the courts continue to uphold the presumption in favor of free speech, meaning that any law or regulation limiting this right must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.