JOSE ANTONIO GONZALES et.al v. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW-KATIGBAK et.

al
G.R. No. L-69500| July 22, 1985
Fernando, C.J.

Doctrines:
1. Censorship partakes the nature of a prior restraint and may only be applied upon showing
of clear and present danger. The test to be applied is whether the average person, applying
the contemporary community standard finds the material, taken as a whole appeals to
prurient interest.
2. A less liberal approach is observed when it comes to television shows because unlike a
motion picture, a television show reaches every home where there is a set- it is more
accessible to the public and to the children in general.

FACTS
The present case is a petition for Certiorari assailing the classification made by the Board
of Review for Motion Pictures and Television.
The motion picture in question “Kapit sa Patalim” was classified for “Adults Only” by the
respondent Board with initial cuts and deletions. The Board then claimed that if they want to
change the classification of the said movie, the petitioners need to delete and change some scenes.
Aggrieved, the petitioner, who is the publisher of the said movie, assailed such decision. However,
the respondent claimed that issue has now become moot because they a permit to exhibit without
cuts and deletions was already issued. Still not satisfied with this, the petitioner filed an amended
petition now questioning the classification as “For Adults Only.” Petitioner now contends that such
classification is an impermissible restraint on the artistic freedom and expression protected by the
right to free speech and of the press.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the classification made by the Board is an impermissible restraint on artistic

expression- YES
The Court reiterated in this case that importance of motion pictures as a medium of
communication of ideas and expression of artistic impulse. It is also considered an organ
of public opinion that must be afforded protection unless there is a clear and present danger
of a substantive evil. However, obscene materials do not enjoy the same protection. The
test that should be followed in determining what is obscene should be whether the average
person, applying the contemporary community standards, finds the works taken as a whole
appeals to prurient interest. It is because the portrayal of sex is not immediately equal to
obscenity and is not a sufficient reason to deny the material constitutional protection.
There is also an applicable law, EO 376, which used the Filipino cultural values as
the standard. It is a well-settled rule that when a law is susceptible of two interpretations,
the Court should adopt the one favoring validity. As thus construed, there can be no valid
objection to the sufficiency of the controlling standard and its conformity to what the
Constitution ordains.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 2. W/N the Board has committed grave abuse of discretion
It was also held by the Court that the Board has committed abuse of discretion
because of the difficult undergone by the petitioners before the movie was classified
as “For Adults Only” without any cuts and deletions. Moreover, the Board’s
perception of what is obscene is too restrictive for the Court. Albeit this, there was
no enough votes to consider the abuse as grave. The adult classification would
therefore serve as a warning that some contents of the movie are not fit for the
young.

WHEREFORE, this Court, in the light of the principles of law enunciated in the opinion,
DISMISSES this petition for certiorari solely on the ground that there are not enough votes for a
ruling that there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-
Adults-Only."

SERAPIO C2021 | 2