MTRCB v.

ABS-CBN AND LEGARDA

FACTS:In 1991, ABSCBN aired “Prosti-tuition,” an episode of the TVprogram “The Inside Story,”depicting
some female studentsfrom PWU moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees.
When the episode was shown with the façade of the PWU building serving as the background of the
episode, an uproar was caused in the said school’s campus. PWU filed letter-complaints with the
MTRCB, alleging that the episode besmirched the name of PWU and resulted in the harassment of some
of its female students.The MTRCB then fined ABSCBN P20k for notsubmitting the program for prior
review. It was then decreed that all subsequent programs of “The Inside Story” and all other ABSCBN
programs should be submitted to the MTRCB for review and approval before showing.The RTC reversed
the MTRCB.

ISSUE:W/N “The Inside Story” should be subject to prior review and approval before showing.

W/N the MTRCB’s power to review televisions programs amounts to prior restraint.

HELD:YES. The MTRCB has the power to screen, review, and examine all television programs,under PD
1986. The only exceptions from the MTRCB’s power of review are those expressly mentioned in Section
7of the said law.

NO. MTRCB did not disapprove or ban the showing of the program. Neither did it cancel ABSCBN’s
permit. It was merely penalized for its failure to submit to MTRCB “The InsideStory” for review and
approval.

DOCTRINE:There has been no declaration at all by the framers of theConstitution that freedom of
expression and the press has a preferred status.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE ANY EXCEPTION, COURTS
MAY NOT EXCEPT SOMETHING THEREFROM, UNLESS THERE IS COMPELLING REASON
APPARENT IN THE LAW TO JUSTIFY IT.

WHEN THE LAW SAYS “ALL TELEVISION PROGRAMS”, THE WORD “ALL” COVERS ALL
TELEVISION PROGRAMS, WHETHER RELIGIOUS, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, NEWS DOCUMENTARY, ETC.
— Our task is to decide whether or not petitioner has the power to review the television program “The
Inside Story” P.D. No. 1986 gives petitioner “the power to screen, review and examine "all television
programs”, emphasizing the phrase “all television programs”, thus: “The law gives the Board the power to
screen, review and examine all ‘television programs’. By the clear terms of the law, the Board has the
power to 'approve, delete … and/or prohibit the … exhibition and/or television broadcast of … television
programs … .’ The law also directs the Board to apply 'contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard’
to determine those which are objectionable for being 'immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good
customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines and its people, or with a dangerous
tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime.”’ Settled is the rule in statutory
construction that where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something
therefrom, unless there is compelling reason apparent in the law to justify it. Ubi lex non distinguit nec
distinguere debemos. Thus, when the law says “all television programs”, the word “all” covers all
television programs, whether religious, public affairs, news documentary, etc. The principle assumes that
the legislative body made no qualification in the use of general word or expression. It then follows that
since “The Inside Story” is a television program, it is within the jurisdiction of the MTRCB over which it has
power of review.

Matabuena v. Cervantes

G.R. No. L-28771 (March 31, 1971)

FACTS: ​Felix Matabuena cohabitated with Respondent. During this period, Felix Matabuena
donated to Respondent a parcel of land. Later the two were married. After the death of Felix Matabuena,
his sister, Petitioner, sought the nullification of the donation citing Art.133 of the Civil Code “Every
donation between the spouses during the marriage shall be void.” The trial court ruled that this case was
not covered by the prohibition because the donation was made at the time the deceased and Respondent
were not yet married and were simply cohabitating.

ISSUE: ​W/N the prohibition applies to donations between live-in partners.

HELD: ​Yes. It is a fundamental principle in statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is
as much a part of the law as what is written. Since the reason for the ban on donations between
spouses during the marriage is to prevent the possibility of undue influence and improper pressure
being exerted by one spouse on the other, there is no reason why this prohibition shall not apply also to
common-law relationships.The court, however, said that the lack of the donation made by the
deceased to Respondent does not necessarily mean that the Petitioner will have exclusive rights to
the disputed property because the relationship between Felix and Respondent were legitimated by
marriage.

Statcon: Statutory construction; Omission must be remedied by adherence to its avowed objective.·If
there is ever any occasion where the principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the
law is as much a part of it as what is written, this is it. Otherwise the basic purpose discernible in such
codal provision would not be attained. Whatever omission may be apparent in an interpretation purely
literal of the language used must be remedial by an adherence to its avowed objective.

People of the Philippines vs. M. Mapa

G.R. No. L-22301

August 30, 1967

En Banc

Facts: The accused was convicted in violation of Sec. 878 in connection to Sec. 2692 of the Revised
Administrative Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 56 and further amended by R.A. 4. On
August 13, 1962, the accused was discovered to have in its possession and control a home-made
revolver cal. 22 with no license permit. In the court proceeding, the accused admitted that he owns the
gun and affirmed that it has no license. The accused further stated that he is a secret agent appointed by
Gov. Leviste of Batangas and showed evidences of appointment. In his defense, the accused presented
the case of People vs. Macarandang, stating that he must acquitted because he is a secret agent and
which may qualify into peace officers equivalent to municipal police which is covered by Art. 879.

Issue: Whether or not holding a position of secret agent of the Governor is a proper defense to illegal
possession of firearms.
Ruling: The Supreme Court in its decision affirmed the lower court’s decision. It stated that the law is
explicit that except as thereafter specifically allowed, "it shall be unlawful for any person to . . . possess
any firearm, detached parts of firearms or ammunition therefor, or any instrument or implement used or
intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition." The next section
provides that "firearms and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or
marines [of the Armed Forces of the Philippines], the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the employment
of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors, provincial
treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and guards of provincial prisoners and jails," are not
covered "when such firearms are in possession of such officials and public servants for use in the
performance of their official duties. The Court construed that there is no provision for the secret agent;
including it in the list therefore the accused is not exempted.

Courts; Statutes; Fundamental duty of courts.·The first and fundamental duty of the courts is to apply the
law. "Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is
impossible or inadequate without them." It is not within the power of a court to set aside the clear and
explicit mandate of a statutory provision.