Case Summary (G.R. No. 184389)
Key Dates and Procedural History
• June 25, 2013: Manila City Prosecutor’s Office (OCP) dismisses charges under Art. 200 (grave scandal) and Ordinance No. 7780, orders filing of Information for Art. 201(3), RPC.
• July 2016: Regional Trial Court (Branch 16, Manila) dismisses Criminal Case No. 13-30084 (Art. 201(3) prosecution) for failure to prosecute.
• September 24, 2019: Supreme Court En Banc Decision dismisses petition for prohibition as moot, holds that obscenity ordinances cannot be facially attacked on overbreadth grounds. Vote 9–4.
• February 6, 2020: Petitioners file motion for reconsideration.
• November 16, 2021: En Banc Resolution denies motion for reconsideration. Decision based on 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 4 (freedom of speech, expression, press).
• Revised Penal Code Arts. 200 (grave scandal) and 201 (immoral doctrines, obscene publications).
• Manila City Ordinance No. 7780 (1993): Prohibits printing, publication, circulation, distribution, sale, exhibition of “obscene” or “pornographic” materials, defines those terms by broad, inclusive language.
• Overbreadth doctrine and obscenity jurisprudence under Miller v. California.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Ordinance No. 7780’s definitions of “obscene” and “pornographic” are vague and overbroad, chilling protected speech.
- Criminal prosecution under the Ordinance violates petitioners’ rights to free speech and expression, due process, privacy, and separation of church and state.
- Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to enjoin preliminary investigation and to have the Ordinance declared unconstitutional on its face.
En Banc Ruling on Mootness
• The dismissal of charges under Ordinance No. 7780 and Art. 200, and later the dismissal with prejudice of the Art. 201(3) case, rendered the petition moot and academic.
• “Capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception inapplicable: the preliminary investigation and potential prosecution were not inherently too brief to litigate, and petitioners failed to show a reasonable expectation of re-indictment under the same ordinance.
En Banc Holding on Overbreadth
• Ordinance No. 7780 is a penal, anti-obscenity law; obscenity is unprotected speech and may not be facially challenged for overbreadth.
• Overbreadth doctrine applies exclusively to statutes regulating protected speech, not ordinary criminal statutes.
• Facial attacks on penal ordinances are impermissible; petitioners may only raise an “as-applied” challenge after trial to test whether specific materials meet obscenity definitions.
Constitutional Avoidance and Restraint
• Court invoked the policy of constitutional avoidance: absent a full hearing with indispensable parties (e.g., Manila City Council), the Court should refrain from resolving constitutional issues.
• No “transcendent value to society” in invalidating an anti-obscenity ordinance on its face; remedy lies in case-by-case adjudication.
Dissenting Views (Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe, Justices Leonen, Carandang)
• Mootness exception applies: co
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184389)
Procedural History
- Petitioners (editors and publisher of FHM Philippines) filed a Special Civil Action for Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order seeking to halt the preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint for grave scandal and violation of Manila City Ordinance No. 7780.
- The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila issued a Resolution (25 June 2013) dismissing charges under Article 200 of the RPC and Ordinance No. 7780, but ordered filing of an Information for violation of Article 201(3) of the RPC; this led to Criminal Case No. 13-30084, later dismissed.
- The Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision dated 24 September 2019 (9–4 vote), dismissed the petition as moot and rejected the facial overbreadth challenge to Ordinance No. 7780.
- Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (6 February 2020) reiterating mootness arguments and constitutional attack on the Ordinance.
Factual Background
- In 2008, pastors and preachers filed a criminal complaint (I.S. No. 08G-12234) before the Manila City Prosecutor: charges under Article 200 (grave scandal), Article 201 (immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, indecent shows) of the RPC, and violation of Manila City Ordinance No. 7780 (anti-obscenity/pornography).
- Petitioners—Allan Madrilejos (Editor-in-Chief), Allan Hernandez (Managing Editor), Glenda Gil (Circulation Manager), Lisa Gokongwei-Cheng (President, Summit Publishing Co., Inc.)—faced preliminary investigation for the printing, distribution, circulation and sale of allegedly obscene materials.
- Ordinance No. 7780 broadly defines as “obscene” any material or act that is indecent, erotic, lewd or offensive, or contrary to morals, good customs, religious beliefs, or which corrupts the mind or arouses prurient interest; it penalizes the printing, publishing, distribution, sale, exhibition, production and viewing of such materials.
- During pendency of the petition, the City Prosecutor dismissed charges under Article 200 and Ordinance No. 7780, refiling only RPC Article 201(3) charges; trial court later dismissed the latter information with prejudice due to failure to prosecute.
Issues Presented
- Whether the dismissal of all charges under Ordinance No. 7780 and RPC renders the prohibition petition moot and academic.
- Whether petitioners may maintain a facial overbreadth challenge to Manila Ordinance No. 7780—a penal anti-obscenity law—despite obscenity being deemed unprotected speech.
- Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness applies to petitioners’ situation.
- Whether petitioners retain a live controversy over the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 7780 and possess standing to seek its invalidation.
- Whether the Ordinance’s definitions and penal clauses violate constitutional guarantees of free speech and expression, due process, privacy and separation of church and state.
Majority Rationale (Per Jardeleza, J.)
- Mootness: All charges under the Ordinance were dismissed; consequently, the petition for prohibition became moot since there was no active proceeding to enjoin and no further impact on petitioners.
- Exception Inapplicable: The preliminary investigation and criminal prosecution were neither inherently too short to litigate nor accompanied by a reasonable expectation of re-prosecution under the same Ordinance; he