Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Raymond L.

Villafuerte
1C
IGLESIA NI CRISTO (INC) v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, BOARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION PICTURES AND
TELEVISION and HONORABLE HENRIETTA S. MENDEZ
G.R. No. 119673
July 26, 1996
FACTS:
In a period between September-November in 1992, the
petitioner, Iglesia Ni Cristo, submitted to the Board of Review for
Motion Pictures and Television a set of VTR tapes of episodes of their
television program entitled Ang Iglesia Ni Cristo. Upon review, the
Board classified some of these as X-Rated, or nor for public viewing. In
view of this, Iglesia Ni Cristo pursued two courses of action. First, they
appealed to the Office of the President to reverse the decision on the
rating of TV Series No. 128, which they succeeded in obtaining.
Second, they filed a case in court against the Board to question their
actions regarding the matter. In presenting their arguments, the Board
cited the reason for their ratings were based on the content of the
programs submitted, as they were seen to be constituting an attack on
other religions, which is expressly prohibited by the law.
ISSUES:

1. WhethertheBoardofReviewforMotionPicturesandTelevision(now
MTRCB) has the power to review the TV program Ang Iglesia ni
Cristo;
2. Assuming it does have the power, whether the Board of Review for
MotionPicturesgravelyabuseditsdiscretioninprohibitingtheairingof
thepetitionersreligiousprogram
HELD:
1. YES
The Law gives the Board the power to screen, review, and
examine all television programs. Along with this, the Board also
has the power to approve, delete, and/or prohibit the exhibition
and/or television broadcast of television programs. In line with
this power, the Board is given the responsibility to apply
contemporary Filipino cultural values as standards for their
judgment.

2. YES
The law respects every persons right to free speech. Therefore
any act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of
invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows.
Furthermore, the examined evidence showed that the so-called
attacks are mere criticisms of the deeply held dogmas and
tenents of other religions. Hence, the ruling was seen to suppress
the petitioners freedom of speech and interferes with its right to
free exercise of religion. Even though the Board may disagree
with the criticisms of other religions by the petitioner, it is no
excuse to interdict such criticisms.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai