Case Digest (G.R. No. 184389) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Allan Madrilejos, et al. v. Lourdes Gatdula, et al. (G.R. No. 184389, September 24, 2019), petitioners Allan Madrilejos (Editor-in-Chief), Allan Hernandez (Managing Editor), Glenda Gil (Circulation Manager) of *For Him Magazine Philippines*, and Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng (President of Summit Publishing) sought a writ of prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin respondents Lourdes Gatdula, Agnes Lopez, and Hilarion Buban of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila (OCP Manila) from conducting a preliminary investigation in I.S. No. 08G-12234. On July 7, 2008, twelve pastors led by Rep. Bienvenido Abante, Jr. filed a joint complaint-affidavit charging several men’s magazines and tabloids, including *FHM Philippines*, with offenses under Articles 200 (Grave Scandal) and 201 (Obscene Publications) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and City of Manila Ordinance No. 7780 (anti-obscenity ordinance). OCP Manila issued subpoenas, create Case Digest (G.R. No. 184389) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Roles
- Petitioners
- Allan Madrilejos – Editor-in-Chief (FHM Philippines)
- Allan Hernandez – Managing Editor (FHM Philippines)
- Glenda Gil – Circulation Manager (FHM Philippines)
- Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng – President (Summit Publishing)
- Respondents
- Lourdes Gatdula, Agnes Lopez, Hilarion Buban – Prosecutors, Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila
- Ordinance No. 7780 and Criminal Complaints
- Ordinance No. 7780 (1993)
- Defines “obscene” and “pornography” in broad terms (any indecent, erotic, lewd, offensive material; depiction of nudity; sexual acts; prurient interest)
- Prohibits printing, publishing, distribution, sale, exhibition, production, viewing of such materials in Manila; prescribes penalties
- July 7, 2008 Complaint-Affidavit
- Filed by 12 pastors/preachers against officers and publishers of men’s magazines and tabloids (including FHM)
- Alleged violations: Articles 200 (grave scandal) & 201(2)(a) (obscene publications) of the RPC and Ordinance No. 7780
- Preliminary Investigation
- Subpoenas issued, petitioners requested bill of particulars
- Panel of prosecutors created under Gatdula, Lopez, Buban
- Petition for Prohibition and Subsequent Events
- September 24, 2008 – Petition for Prohibition filed, challenging constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7780; prayer for injunction
- June 25, 2013 – Prosecutor’s Resolution dismisses charges under Article 200 and Ordinance No. 7780; proceeds on Article 201(3)
- April 26, 2016 – Criminal case dismissed with prejudice
- Supreme Court Decision (September 24, 2019) – Petition dismissed as moot and academic; overbreadth challenge improper
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Is a petition for prohibition the proper remedy to enjoin a criminal prosecution under an allegedly unconstitutional ordinance?
- Do petitioners have legal standing to challenge Ordinance No. 7780?
- Substantive Issues
- Does Ordinance No. 7780 violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression (overbreadth, vagueness, failure to follow Miller standards)?
- Does it infringe due process or privacy rights?
- Does it offend the separation of Church and State?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)