1. What do you understand by obscene, pornographic and indecent?

Obscene – Refers to an act or a thing that is morally offensive to one’s feelings and to the general
public because it depicts manners of nudity or sex without any artistic or scientific value.

Pornographic – Refers to books, magazines and films that sexually excite people. It portrays
sexual acts solely for the purpose of sexual arousal and pleasure.

Indecent - Refers to an act or a thing that is inappropriate with the accepted moral standards.

2. May law enforcement officers validly confiscate magazines they consider to be obscene,
pornographic and indecent?

No, law enforcement officers may not validly confiscate magazines they consider to be obscene,
pornographic and indecent.

As provided under the law, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable and no search warrant or warrant of arrest issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge.

In the case at bar, the court is not convinced that the government authorities have shown the
required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature for which mandatory
injunction had been sought. First of all they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1)
finding the said materials to be obscene, pornographic and indecent, and (2) authorizing them to
carry out a search and seizure by way of a search warrant. It is basic that searches and seizures
maybe done only through a judicial warrant, otherwise, they become unreasonable and
inviolable.

Thus, law enforcement officers may not validly confiscate magazines they consider to be
obscene, pornographic and indecent.

3. In the case of People vs. Kottinger, In order to determine the existence of obscenity the court
laid down several tests as follows: (1) it depraves or corrupts those whose minds are open to
such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being
obscene may fall, and (2) If it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an
indecency.

In the case of People vs. Go, If such pictures, sculptures and paintings are shown in art exhibit
and art galleries for the cause of art, to be viewed and appreciated by people interested in
art, there would be no offense committed.

In the case of People vs. Alova, actual exhibition of the sexual act, preceded by acts of
lasciviousness, can have no redeeming feature. In it, there is no room for art. One can see
nothing in it but clear and unmitigated obscenity, indecency, and an offense to public morals.

In the case of Gonzles vs. KalawKatigbak, obscenity is measured in terms of the "dominant
theme" of the work, rather than isolated passages.

In the case of Memoirs vs. Massachusettes, obscenity is characterized as one utterly without
any redeeming social value.

In the case of Miller v. California, the basic guidelines for obscenity are as follows: "(1) whether
'the average person, applying contemporary standards' would find the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest , (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.