Whether or not the Caloocan Ordinance No.

0439 of “no short-shorts, topless”

in public violates the freedom of expression (1 st a warning, 2nd a fine of P500,
and third P1,000 fine and jail time of not more than 2 days, if no money, sweep
for 2-4 days). Decide.

laid down the more reasonable and thus, more acceptable test for obscenity:
whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards,
the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient
interest. Such material is defined as that which has a tendency to excite lustful
thoughts, and prurient interest as a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex,
or excretion.(Justice Carpio dissenting opinion Soriano v Mtrcb quoting Roth vs
United States)
the Miller test

regulation is valid because of obscenity. soriano vs. laguardia

Freedom of expression vs. Obscenity

Low cut dress is like a garden gate, it guards the property without blocking the
view.

Feminist group Gabriela is opposed to the ordinance because it fosters a sense

of victim-blaming. There are moves to change the rule and apply more aligned
ordinances, like Quezon City’s anti-catcalling ordinance. Generally, though, we
feel there should be a boost in wide-spread public education on respect and
body autonomy.

A and B were married on July 1, 1987. B was lost in a game of chance

(gambling) in an amount worth 10 million pesos. Is the conjugal partnership of
gains liable for the loss of B in a game of chance?

Article 123 of the Family Code provides that whatever may be lost during the
marriage in any game of chance or in betting, sweepstakes, or any other kind
of gambling whether permitted or prohibited by law, shall be borne by the loser
and shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership but any winnings
therefrom shall form part of the conjugal partnership property.

The Family Code does not apply here since it was only promulgated on July 6,
1987.

Applicable po. Check final provisions Art. 256.

Article 164 of the Civil Code of the Philippines should apply not Article 123 of
the Family Code since their marriage was celebrated before the effectivity of the
Family Code.

The Family Code became effective on August 3, 1988.

The Court in Pita v CA emphasized the difficulty of the question

and pointed out how hazy jurisprudence is on obscenity and how
jurisprudence actually failed to settle questions on the matter.
Significantly, the dynamism of human civilization does not help at
all. It is evident that individual tastes develop, adapt to wide-
ranging influences, and keep in step with the rapid advance of
civilization.It seems futile at this point to formulate a perfect
definition of obscenity that shall apply in all cases.