Case Digest (G.R. No. 184389) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Petitioners Allan Madrilejos, Allan Hernandez, Glenda Gil, and Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng, officers and publishers of FHM Philippines, filed a special civil action for prohibition against Lourdes Gatdula, Agnes Lopez, Hilarion Buban, and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila to stop a preliminary investigation into complaints for alleged violation of Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code and Manila City Ordinance No. 7780, which penalizes the printing, distribution, circulation, and sale of “scandalous, obscene and pornographic materials.” They argued that Ordinance No. 7780’s vague and expansive language offended their rights to free speech and expression, due process, privacy, and the separation of church and state. On 25 June 2013, the City Prosecutor dismissed the charges under Article 200 and the ordinance but filed charges under Article 201(3) of the RPC (immoral publications), which the Regional Trial Court later dismissed for failure to prosecute. On 24 September 2019, t Case Digest (G.R. No. 184389) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Ordinance
- Petitioners: Allan Madrilejos (editor-in-chief), Allan Hernandez (managing editor), Glenda Gil (circulation manager) of FHM Philippines; Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng (president) of Summit Publishing.
- Respondents: Lourdes Gatdula, Agnes Lopez, Hilarion Buban, Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
- Manila City Ordinance No. 7780 (1993) penalizes printing, distribution, circulation, sale, exhibition, production, public showing, or viewing of “obscene” or “pornographic” materials and acts.
- Criminal Proceedings
- July 2008 joint complaint by pastors and preachers against petitioners for:
- Violation of Article 200 (grave scandal) and Article 201(2)(a) (obscene publications) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- Violation of Ordinance No. 7780.
- Petition for prohibition filed with Supreme Court to enjoin preliminary investigation.
- November 2013: City Prosecutor’s Resolution dismissing charges under Article 200 and Ordinance No. 7780; ordering filing of Information under Article 201(3) RPC for “offensive to morals” publications.
- Criminal Case No. 13-30084 (Art. 201(3) RPC) raffled to RTC Manila Branch 16 and later dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
- Supreme Court Action
- September 24, 2019 En Banc Decision (9–4) dismissing petition as moot and holding Ordinance 7780 cannot be facially attacked on overbreadth.
- February 6, 2020 Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, reiterating mootness and overbreadth arguments.
- November 16, 2021 En Banc Resolution (7–4) denying Motion for Reconsideration.
Issues:
- Mootness
- Whether dismissal of criminal charges under Ordinance 7780 and Art. 201(3) RPC renders petition for prohibition and constitutional challenge moot and academic.
- Overbreadth and Facial Challenge
- Whether petitioners may mount a facial overbreadth challenge to Ordinance 7780.
- Whether overbreadth doctrine applies only to statutes regulating protected speech.
- Separation of Constitutional Functions
- Whether the Court should avoid constitutional adjudication absent a full-blown hearing with indispensable parties (e.g., Manila City Council).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)