9/7/2019 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

119673, July 26, 1996

Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Philippine Constitutional Law

Digests
A site for digests of landmark Constitutional Law cases in the Philippines.

Home Privacy Policy Musings on Law All That Matters

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26,

1996

DECISION

PUNO, J.:

I. THE FACTS

Blog Archive
Several pre-taped episodes of the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” of the
religious group Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by the ▼
▼ 2012 (26)
respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). These TV ►
► July (8)
programs allegedly “offend[ed] and constitute[d] an attack against other religions which is
►
► April (1)
expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner INC’s controversial biblical
interpretations and its “attacks” against contrary religious beliefs. ►
► March (3)
▼
▼ February (11)
Petitioner INC went to court to question the actions of respondent Board. The RTC Results of the 2011 Bar Examinations
ordered the respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the necessary permit for its TV Out This Week...
programs. But on appeal by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. The CA Francisco Chavez v. Raul M.
ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV Gonzales and National ...
program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with grave Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc.,
abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series 297 U.S. 233...
of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute an attack against New York Times v. United States, 403
another religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary to law and U.S. 713, Jun...
contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner INC appealed to Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court. G.R. No. 11...
Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate
II. THE ISSUES Impeachment Cour...
China Banking Corporation v. CA,
(1) Does respondent Board have the power to review petitioner’s TV program? G.R. No. 140687, ...
Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of
(2) Assuming it has the power, did respondent Board gravely abuse its discretion Appeals, et al...
when it prohibited the airing of petitioner’s religious program? Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, June 10,
1968
III. THE RULING Columbia Pictures v. Flores, G.R. No.
78631, June ...

[The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the CA insofar as the CA sustained the action Randolf S. David v. Gloria
of the respondent Board’s X-rating petitioner’s TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. ...
121. It also voted 10-4 to AFFIRM the CA insofar as the CA it sustained the jurisdiction of ►
► January (3)
the respondent MTRCB to review petitioner’s TV program entitled “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.”]
►
► 2011 (11)
1. YES, respondent Board has the power to review petitioner’s TV program.
Followers
Petitioner contends that the term “television program” [in Sec. 3 of PD No. 1986
that the respondent Board has the power to review and classify] should not include
religious programs like its program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.” A contrary interpretation, it is
urged, will contravene section 5, Article III of the Constitution which guarantees that “no
law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/iglesia-ni-cristo-vs-court-of-appeals.html 1/4
9/7/2019 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without Mga sumusubaybay (18)
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.”

[The Court however] reject petitioner’s postulate. Petitioner’s public broadcast on

TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Television is a
medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. The Court iterates the rule that
the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the
clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to Sundin
prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public
morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive
to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is About Me
and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our country today. . . [T]he Court] shall Atty. Ed
continue to subject any act pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to a
View my complete profile
heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational exercise to the irrationality of man.
For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still.
Labels
2. YES, respondent Board gravely abuse its discretion when it prohibited
2011 bar exam results (1)
the airing of petitioner’s religious program.
20th century fox v. CA (1)

[A]ny act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and 3 readings on separate days (1)
should be greeted with furrowed brows. It is the burden of the respondent Board to 349 pepsi crowns case (1)
overthrow this presumption. If it fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be abadilla 5 (1)
struck down. It failed in the case at bar. actual case or controversy (1)
alibi (1)
The evidence shows that the respondent Board x-rated petitioners TV series for angara v. electoral commission (1)
“attacking” either religions, especially the Catholic Church. An examination of the ARMM elections (1)
evidence . . . will show that the so-called “attacks” are mere criticisms of some of the arnault v. nazareno (1)
deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. The videotapes were not viewed by the arroyo v. de lima (1)
respondent court as they were not presented as evidence. Yet they were considered by bar exams (1)
the respondent court as indecent, contrary to law and good customs, hence, can be
bayan v. zamora (1)
prohibited from public viewing under section 3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly
cacho-olivares v. ermita (1)
suppresses petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of
chavez v. gonzales and ntc (1)
religion. xxx.
checkpoints case (1)

The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by china bank v. CA (1)
petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however, unclean they columbia pictures v. flores (1)
may be. Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any combinations and restraint of trade (1)
religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. . . In fine, respondent board comprehensive agrarian reform program
cannot squelch the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other (2)

religions, even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country. In constitutionality of checkpoints (2)
a State where there ought to be no difference between the appearance and the reality of contempt power of senate (1)
freedom of religion, the remedy against bad theology is better theology. The bedrock of control test (1)
freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the custodial investigation (1)
marketplace of duelling ideas. When the luxury of time permits, the marketplace of ideas david v. arroyo (1)
demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is the spark of opposite decision in in re charges of plagiarism v.
speech, the heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth. justice del castillo (1)
delegation of power (1)
In x-rating the TV program of the petitioner, the respondents failed to apply the dissent of justice ma. lourdes sereno (1)
clear and present danger rule. In American Bible Society v. City of Manila, this Court held: economic protectionism (1)
“The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and election synchronization (1)
worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such equity structure in public utilities (1)
right can be justified like other restraints on freedom of expression on the ground that exclusionary rule (1)
there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to
filipino first policy (2)
prevent.” In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we further ruled that “. . . it is
foreign military troops in the phils. (1)
only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the
fortun v. arroyo (1)
security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be
freedom of expression (1)
justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.”
freedom of religion (1)
The records show that the decision of the respondent Board, affirmed by the freedom of speech (1)
respondent appellate court, is completely bereft of findings of facts to justify freedom of the press (3)
the conclusion that the subject video tapes constitute impermissible attacks against gamboa v. teves (1)
another religion. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring general warrant (1)
about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on globalization (1)
speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by GMA TRO (1)
the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the life of a reality already grosjean v. american press (1)
on ground. hacienda luisita (2)
hello garci (1)
HLI v. PARC decision july 5 2011 (1)

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/iglesia-ni-cristo-vs-court-of-appeals.html 2/4
9/7/2019 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996
HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011 (1)
Posted by Anonymous at 2:08 PM
holdover of elected ARMM officials (1)
Labels: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, iglesia ni cristo v. CA, prior restraint, review/censorship
iglesia ni cristo v. CA (1)
of religious tv programs
Location: Lapu-Lapu City, Philippines impeachment of cj corona (1)
implied powers (1)
in re garcia (1)
No comments: incompatible offices (1)
incorporation clause (2)
Post a Comment ineligibility of the President to run for re-
election (1)
inherent powers (1)
Enter your comment...
investigation in aid of legislation (1)
jose midas marquez (1)
justice mariano del castillo (2)
justice sereno's dissent in in re charges
Comment as: Google Accoun of plagiarism vs. justice del castillo (1)
kida v. senate (1)

Publish Preview
kuroda v. jalandoni (1)
laserna v. ddb (1)
liban v. gordon (1)
Links to this post lis mota (1)
lumanog v. people (1)
Create a Link
maguindanao massacre (1)
mandatory drug testing (1)
manila hotel (1)
manila prince hotel v. gsis (1)
martial law (1)
meaning of the term capital in Sec. 11
Art. XII of the Constitution (1)
monopolies (1)
moot and academic cases (1)
national patrimony (1)
new york times v. U.S. (1)
office search (1)
oil deregulation (1)
one title-one subject (1)
p.s. bank v. senate impeachment court
Newer Post Home Older Post (1)
people v. exala (1)
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Philippine National Red Cross (1)
pimentel v. comelec (1)
piracy (1)
plagiarism (3)
police lineup (1)
pollo v. david (1)
pormento v. estrada (1)
power to promulgate rules of procedure
(1)
presentation of master tape in piracy
cases (1)
president's power to appoint ARMM
OICs (1)
prior restraint (3)
privacy of communications and
correspondence (1)
probable cause for issuance of warrant
of arrest (1)
probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant (1)
RA 9165 (1)
requisites of judicial review (2)
resolution in in re charges of plagiarism
v. justice del castillo (1)
review/censorship of religious tv
programs (1)
right against self-incrimination (1)
right against unreasonable search and
seizure (2)

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/iglesia-ni-cristo-vs-court-of-appeals.html 3/4
9/7/2019 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996
right of privacy (1)
right to travel (1)
roberts v. CA (1)
search and seizure (4)
search warrant (1)
secrecy of foreign currency deposits (1)
self-executing provision (1)
sjs v. ddb (1)
speedy disposition of cases (1)
stock distribution option (2)
stop-and-frisk (1)
suspension of privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus (1)
tañada v. angara (1)
tatad v. executive secretary (1)
terry search (1)
terry v. ohio (1)
treaty (3)
TRO vs. senate impeachment court (1)
university of cebu college of law (1)
valid form of warrantless search (1)
valmonte v. de villa (2)
vinuya v. executive secretary (2)
visiting forces agreement (1)
warrant of arrest (1)
warrantless arrests (1)
warrantless search and seizure (1)
world trade organization (1)

TopBlogs.com.ph

Legal - Top Blogs Philippines

Feedjit

Total Pageviews

368,806

Copyright 2011-2012 by Atty. Ed. Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/iglesia-ni-cristo-vs-court-of-appeals.html 4/4