Case Summary (G.R. No. 184389)
Key Individuals and Context
Petitioners Allan Madrilejos (Editor-in-Chief), Allan Hernandez (Managing Editor), Glenda Gil (Circulation Manager) and Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng (President of Summit Publishing) publish FHM Philippines. Respondents Lourdes Gatdula, Agnes Lopez and Hilarion Buban serve on the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office panel. The dispute arises from a 2008 joint complaint-affidavit by pastors alleging that seven men’s magazines and tabloids violated Articles 200 and 201 of the Revised Penal Code and Manila Ordinance No. 7780 on obscenity and pornography.
Petitioner’s Relief Sought
Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction or TRO to halt the preliminary investigation of I.S. No. 08G-12234, arguing that Manila Ordinance No. 7780 is facially unconstitutional under the 1987 Constitution. They claimed it violated their free speech, due process, privacy rights and the separation of church and state by adopting unduly broad definitions of “obscene” and “pornographic.”
Procedural History
• July 7, 2008 – Complaint-affidavit filed by pastors against publishers and editors of men’s magazines for purportedly obscene content.
• July 24, 2008 – Subpoena issued for petitioners to submit counter-affidavits and appear for preliminary investigation.
• August 2008 – Petitioners request bill of particulars on the complaint’s lack of specificity.
• September 24, 2008 – Petition for prohibition filed.
• June 25, 2013 – Manila City Prosecutor dismisses charges under Ordinance No. 7780 and RPC Article 200 but recommends information for Article 201(3).
• April 26, 2016 – Regional Trial Court dismisses the remaining criminal case with prejudice.
Petitioners’ Constitutional Arguments
Petitioners contended that Ordinance No. 7780’s definitions:
• Label all depictions of sexual acts or nudity as “obscene” without regard to community standards or serious value.
• Empower pastors to impose their religious norms on the public.
• Penalize publishing roles without requiring proof of knowledge or intent.
• Intrude on private possession and viewing, infringing privacy.
They urged adoption of the Miller v. California obscenity test—prurient appeal, patent offensiveness, and lack of serious value—and claimed the Ordinance failed all three prongs.
Respondents’ Opposition
Respondents argued:
• Prohibition does not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution unless the tribunal acts without jurisdiction.
• Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Ordinance.
• The complaint and preliminary investigation were procedurally regular.
• Manila Ordinance No. 7780 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality.
• Obscenity is unprotected speech; therefore overbreadth challenges do not lie against anti-obscenity laws.
Supreme Court Resolution I – Mootness
The Court found that the dismissal of all charges under Ordinance No. 7780 and the RPC left no live controversy: the petitioners’ prosecution had ceased, and the City Prosecutor could not refile without violating double jeopardy. Under Article VIII, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power requires an actual justiciable controversy. The Court held that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine (grave constitutional violation, exceptional character, ne
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184389)
Facts
- July 7, 2008: Twelve pastors and preachers file a joint complaint‐affidavit before the City Prosecutor of Manila under Articles 200 and 201 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and City Ordinance No. 7780, charging officers and publishers of men’s magazines including FHM Philippines.
- Alleged offending issues of FHM are printed, published, distributed, and sold in Manila and deemed “clearly scandalous, obscene, and pornographic.”
- Ordinance No. 7780 broadly defines “obscene” and “pornographic,” prohibiting printing, publishing, distribution, sale, exhibition, production, and private viewing of such materials, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment.
- Petitioners: the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Circulation Manager of FHM Philippines, and the Chairman and President of Summit Publishing (FHM’s publisher).
- Respondents: Lourdes Gatdula, Agnes Lopez, Hilarion Buban and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, who conduct the preliminary investigation.
Procedural History
- July 24, 2008: Subpoena issued requiring petitioners to submit counter-affidavits and testify.
- Petitioners file urgent motion for a bill of particulars, seeking specificity of alleged acts under the joint complaint.
- September 24, 2008: Petition for prohibition filed in the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin the preliminary investigation and to declare Ordinance No. 7780 unconstitutional.
- Respondents file comment urging dismissal: contesting jurisdictional basis, standing, justiciability, and presumption of constitutionality.
- June 25, 2013: Prosecutor’s resolution dismisses charges under Article 200 RPC and Ordinance No. 7780 but orders filing of informations for Article 201(3) RPC.
- April 26, 2016: Criminal case for Article 201(3) RPC dismissed with prejudice.
- September 24, 2019: Supreme Court renders decision dismissing petition as moot and academic and rejecting facial overbreadth challenge.
Issues
- Whether a petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to enjoin preliminary investigation under an allegedly unconstitutional ordinance.
- Whether petitioners have legal standing to challenge Ordinance No. 7780 on free speech, due process, privacy, and separation of church and state grounds.
- Whether Ordinance No. 7780 violates constitutional guarantees: freedom of speech and expression, due process, privacy, and separation of church and state.
- Whether the petition is moot and academic after dismissal of criminal charges.
- Whether a facial overbreadth challenge is permissible against a local anti-obscenity ordinance.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Ordinance No. 7780’s definitions of “obscene” and “pornography” are unduly br