Case Summary (G.R. No. 148579)
Authority of MTRCB Under PD 1986
PD 1986 § 3 grants MTRCB the power to screen, review, and examine all motion pictures and television programs. Section 7 of MTRCB’s Rules and Regulations requires a prior permit before any broadcast or exhibition. The Supreme Court, applying the 1987 Constitution’s provisions on freedom of expression and permissible regulation, affirmed that MTRCB has express statutory authority to undertake prior review of programs.
Classification and Exemptions
“Muro Ami: The Making” was classified by both MTRCB and the CA as a publicity material for a motion picture, placing it squarely within MTRCB’s review power. GMA’s contention that the program was a public affairs show did not alter the outcome, since the Court has held (MTRCB v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 155282) that public affairs programs likewise fall under MTRCB’s jurisdiction. Exemptions in PD 1986 § 7 (government-produced content, newsreels) did not apply.
Enforceability of Memorandum Circular No. 98-17
Under the Administrative Code of 1987 § 3, administrative issuances must be filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) to become effective. Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 had not been registered with ONAR as of January 27, 2000. Absent such filing and publication, the circular was unenforceable against GMA. The Court reaffirmed that unregistered regulations cannot bind private entities.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148579)
Facts
- Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages UHF television station EMC Channel 27.
- On January 7, 2000, the MTRCB issued an order suspending EMC Channel 27 for seven days for airing “Muro Ami: The Making” without a permit, in violation of Section 7 of PD 1986.
- The suspension order was grounded on Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 (December 15, 1998), which prescribed penalties for broadcasting without a valid MTRCB permit.
- GMA Network complied by taking Channel 27 off the air from midnight of January 11, 2000, and filed a motion for reconsideration and a letter-protest, both of which the MTRCB merely “noted,” effectively denying them.
Procedural History
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari.
- On June 18, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MTRCB’s January 7, 2000 suspension order in toto.
- Petitioner then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA decision.
Issues
- Whether the MTRCB has authority to review “Muro Ami: The Making” prior to broadcast.
- Whether Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was enforceable and binding on the petitioner.
Applicable Law
- PD 1986, Section 3: Creates the MTRCB and empowers it to screen, review, and examine all motion pictures and television program