Title
Madrilejos vs. Gatdula
Case
G.R. No. 184389
Decision Date
Nov 16, 2021
Editors of FHM Philippines challenged Manila Ordinance No. 7780 as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot after criminal charges were dropped, avoiding ruling on the ordinance's validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 90314)

Petition and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order seeking to enjoin the conduct of a preliminary investigation and to obtain a declaration that Ordinance No. 7780 is unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness, overbreadth, infringement of free speech and expression, due process, privacy, and separation of church and state.

Procedural History — Prosecutorial and Trial Events

A criminal complaint by private complainants (group of pastors and preachers) prompted preliminary investigation for alleged violations of Article 200 and Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code and Ordinance No. 7780. The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila issued a Resolution (25 June 2013) dismissing charges under Article 200 and Ordinance No. 7780 and recommending information for Article 201(3) (immoral doctrines/obscene publications). Petitioners informed the Court of the OCP Resolution while the petition was pending; a subsequent information (Criminal Case No. 13-30084) was filed and later dismissed.

Majority Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration

The Court En Banc, voting 9–4, DENIED petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 24 September 2019 decision dismissing the petition. The majority reiterated two principal grounds for dismissal: (1) the case was rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of criminal charges under Ordinance No. 7780; and (2) Ordinance No. 7780, as an anti‑obscenity law, could not be facially attacked on overbreadth grounds because obscenity is unprotected speech.

Majority Reasoning — Mootness and Constitutional Avoidance

The majority held that dismissal of the criminal charges eliminated the justiciable controversy sought to be enjoined, rendering an adjudication on the ordinance’s constitutionality of no practical legal value in the circumstances. The majority emphasized the constitutional policy of avoidance and judicial restraint, noting the Court should not resolve constitutional questions when the controversy can be settled on other grounds and when indispensable parties (e.g., the Manila City Council) were not before the Court.

Majority Reasoning — Capable-of-Repetition, Yet-Evading-Review Exception

The Court analyzed the two requisites of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception: (1) challenged action of inherently short duration so as to evade review, and (2) reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. The majority found both requisites lacking: the preliminary-investigation/indictment process was not of such short duration as to evade review, and petitioners failed to show a reasonable likelihood they would again be prosecuted under the ordinance.

Majority Reasoning — Overbreadth Doctrine and Obscenity

The majority declared that the overbreadth doctrine is a special tool for free‑speech cases and is not properly used to test penal statutes regulating obscenity. Because obscenity is deemed unprotected speech, anti‑obscenity laws cannot be facially invalidated under overbreadth theory in the majority’s view. The majority also noted that the Manila City Council, as the ordinance’s enacting body, was not made a party and therefore had not been heard on the constitutionality of the ordinance.

Dissenting Views — Overview

Senior Associate Justice Perlas‑Bernabe, Associate Justices Leonen and Carandang (joining Leonen), Justice Caguioa, and Justice Lazaro‑Javier filed dissenting opinions arguing that (a) the petition was not moot because the constitutional question about a subsisting ordinance retained practical legal value and the ordinance continued to chill protected speech; and (b) a facial overbreadth challenge to Ordinance No. 7780 was appropriate and the ordinance should be declared unconstitutional.

Dissent (Perlas‑Bernabe) — Mootness and Practical Legal Value

Justice Perlas‑Bernabe maintained that dismissal of the immediate criminal charges did not remove the live controversy: Ordinance No. 7780 remained subsisting law and therefore continued to chill petitioners and similarly situated publishers (monthly publications) who faced a real prospect of prosecution for future issues. She asserted the constitutional issue had practical legal value and the Court should decide the ordinance’s validity rather than avoid the question.

Dissent (Perlas‑Bernabe) — Overbreadth and Miller Test Analysis

Perlas‑Bernabe argued that a facial overbreadth challenge was proper because the ordinance’s definitions of "obscene" and "pornographic" are unduly expansive and fail to incorporate the Miller v. California guidelines (as already recognized in Philippine jurisprudence): (a) whether the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of the average person under contemporary community standards; (b) whether it depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by law; and (c) whether it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. She explained that Ordinance No. 7780 criminalized mere depiction or description of sexual acts, nudity, or sexual organs without the necessary limiting criteria, thereby sweeping into criminality protected expression and creating a chilling effect.

Dissent (Leonen) — Mootness Exceptions and Justiciability

Justice Leonen similarly rejected the majority’s mootness conclusion. He argued the case fit the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception because preliminary investigations and the administrative/prosecutorial process are often too short to allow full judicial review and because petitioners’ monthly publications made recurrence reasonably likely. Leonen emphasized the Court’s role in formulating controlling constitutional principles to guide bench, bar, and public in matters involving fundamental rights.

Dissent (Leonen) — Overbreadth, Vagueness and Facial Challenge

Leonen critiqued the majority’s categorical refusal to permit facial challenges to penal statutes on overbreadth grounds. He reasoned that when a penal law encroaches upon freedom of speech, facial review is warranted to avert chilling effects. He applied Miller as the prevailing test in the jurisdiction to determine whether the ordinance’s scope improperly criminalizes speech that would otherwise have constitutional protection; he concluded Ordinance No. 7780 is impermissibly broad and should be struck down.

Dissent (Caguioa) — Justiciability and Overbreadth Emphasis

Justice Caguioa on reconsideration aligned with the dissenting view that an actual controversy persisted because the ordinance remained effective. He stressed that the dismissal of charges at the prosecutor or trial level does not preclude future enforcement; voluntary cessation of prosecutorial conduct moots a case only if it is "absolutely clear" the behavior will not recur. Caguioa emphasized the ordinance’s failure to adopt Miller’s limits, its lack of narrow tailoring, and th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms