Case Digest (G.R. No. 184389)
Facts:
Madrilejos v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 184389, November 16, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Allan Madrilejos, Allan Hernandez, Glenda Gil, and Lisa Gokongwei‑Cheng (editors and officers of FHM Philippines and its publisher, Summit Publishing) filed a Special Civil Action for Prohibition with Prayer for a Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order seeking to enjoin the preliminary investigation conducted by prosecutors Lourdes Gatdula, Agnes Lopez and Hilarion Buban of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila (respondents). They challenged the constitutionality of Manila City Ordinance No. 7780 (the “Anti‑Obscenity and Pornography Ordinance of the City of Manila”) as vague and overbroad and as offending their rights under the Constitution, including freedom of speech and due process.
At the prosecutor level the panel issued a Resolution dated 25 June 2013 dismissing charges under Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code and under Ordinance No. 7780 but recommending filing of information under Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code; that information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 13‑30084 in Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioners later secured dismissal with prejudice of the RTC case (the prosecution failed to proceed). While the criminal matters were pending, petitioners had brought the prohibition petition directly to the Court to restrain the preliminary investigation and to obtain a facial declaration against the Ordinance.
The Court En Banc, in a Decision dated 24 September 2019 (vote 9–4), dismissed the petition on two principal grounds: (1) the dismissal of charges under Ordinance No. 7780 rendered the prohibition petition moot and academic; and (2) Ordinance No. 7780—being an anti‑obscenity penal law—could not be subject ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for prohibition moot and academic after the dismissal of the criminal charges under Ordinance No. 7780?
- If mootness is asserted, does the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception apply?
- May Ordinance No. 7780, an anti‑obscenity penal ordinance, be facially challenged on overbreadth grounds?
- If a facial overbreadth challenge is available, is Ordinance No. 7780 unconstitutional for being overbroad and therefore violative of freedom of speech under A...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)