RULING AND DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court ruled that YES, Ordinance no. 7780 is constitutional. The

petitoners’ arguments are facial attacks against Ordinance no. 7780 on the ground of

overbreadth. The overbreadth doctrine finds special and limited application only to free

speech cases. The present petition does not involve a free speech case, it stemmed

rather, from an obscenity prosecution.

The proposed ruling of Group 6 is that Ordinance 7780 is unconstitutional. The

ordinance itself is questionable for it is vague and too broad, it does not show what the

real definition of obscenity is. If the said ordinance is reasonable, then it would cover a

vast aspect in the society. Artists, painters, businesses on lingerie and underwear, do

these categories fall under Ordinance 7780? The SC should have not ruled the case as

moot and academic, Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first,

there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the

situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue

raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the

public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review (David v.

Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160). It is simply not moot and academic because in

this case the issue regarding the constitutionality of the said ordinance is separate and

distinct from the matter of petitioners’ criminal prosecution. It remains a live controversy

for it questions the validity of an ordinance.

Moreover, the group continues to question the ordinance for the provisions seems to be

overly broad and must be analyzed through overbreadth doctrine. The group argues

that the said ordinance can be facially attacked on the ground of overbreadth because
of the chilling effect upon the protected speech. The ordinance itself does not clearly

show the grounds of what constituted as obscene.

The group argues that before speech may be categorized as obscene and unprotected,

there should be a legislation first before declaring it to be so. Jurisprudence must first

recognise the idea of any speech or expression that is obscene. For so long as the

Court remains unclear with the definition of obscenity, anti-obscenity statutes may at

present be subjected to a constitutional challenge to decide whether they abuse certain

constitutional freedom. In this way, it is just when the statute beats question of

overbreadth can any discourse of articulation restricted by it be viewed as obscene or

unprotected speech. Moreover, in a jurisprudence, the Court has held that a statute is

comsidered void for overbdreadth when it offends the constitutional principle that a

governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state

regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and

thereby invade the are of protected freedoms. (G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992, 207

SCRA 712.)

The whole argument revolves around the constitutionality of the ordinance, to check if

an ordinance is valid, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has laid down the guidelines

for a valid ordinance. There are two formal requisites, first, the ordinance must not

exceed the corporate powers of the local government unit can enact. Second, said

ordinance must be passed in accordance with the procedure required by law like the

required quorum, majority of votes, public consultation and others. Besides the formal

requirements, the ordinance must also comply with the following substantial

requirements: it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; it must not be
unfair or oppressive; it must not be partial or discriminatory; it must not prohibit but it

can regulate trade; it must be general and consistent with public policy; and lastly, it

must not be unreasonable.

Source: https://www.eaglenews.ph/what-makes-an-ordinance-valid/

In this case, the group remains strong with their proposed ruling that the supreme court

erred in analyzing the ordinance itself. Ordinance 7780 is too broad that the group

cannot determine what falls under the said ordinance, the group cannot also fathom

what the ordinance prohibits because of its vagueness. It is not moot and academic and

most importantly, the overbreadth doctrine can be utilized. Indeed, Ordinance 7780 is

patently offensive to the constitutional right to free speech and expression.