The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the right and duty of television station owners to self-regulation and if they have meted out sufficient sanctions for reported broadcast violations, penalties imposed by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) are no longer necessary.
With the ruling, the SC denied MTRCB’s petition against the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in favor of ABC Development Corporation, doing business under the name and style of Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC TV5).
The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and was made public last Aug. 8.
The case involved the Tulfo brothers Raffy, Erwin and Ben who were the hosts of the television program “T3 Kapatid Sagot Kita” aired on weekdays over TV5.
Raffy is now a senator, Erwin is the secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and Ben is still a journalist.
During their May 7, 2012 program episode, the three Tulfo brothers expressed their sentiments and comments on the mauling of their eldest brother Ramon, a newspaper columnist, at the airport by the group of then couple Raymart Santiago and Claudine Barreto.
Among other things, the Tulfo brothers warned Raymart and Claudine that if they would meet, something bad would happen. Ben said he wanted to meet Raymart in a one-on-one fist fight.
MTRCB special agents filed an incident report to then Board Chairperson Mary Grace Poe Llamanzares. The board’s chief legal counsel found probable cause to charge the Tulfo brothers and TV5 with violation of Section 3(c) of Presidential Decree No. 1986, the MTRCB law.
Section 3 (c) of PD 1986 involves the power of MTRCB to “approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions” of television broadcasts “for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime....”
MTRCB then directed the management of TV5, particularly Ramon del Rosario who was head of the station’s Airtime Management Department, to explain why sanctions should not be imposed.
TV5 directed the Tulfo brothers why they should not be sanctioned for their May 7, 2012 utterances in the program.
In their letter-responses, the three Tulfo brothers apologized and expressed their regrets.
Considering the Tulfo brothers’ “emotions, admissions and subsequent apologies,” TV5 imposed a three-episode suspension of their program.
Thereafter, TV5 received a letter complaint from MTRCB alleging that the Tulfo brothers’ statements and comments on the mauling of their brother Ramon were "indecent, contrary to law, or with dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence, or of a wrong or crime.”
In its May 30, 212 decision, MTRCB ordered that “T3 Kapatid Sagot Kita" aired over ABC TV5," be suspended for three months; an administrative penalty or fine of Pl00,000.00 be imposed; and after complete service of the suspension, the program be placed under probation or on a per-episode permit basis until the MTRCB is convinced that self-regulatory measures have been implemented.
TV5 elevated the issue before the CA and pleaded for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the implementation of MTRCB’s decision. The TRO was granted.
In its March 7, 2013 decision, the CA ruled:
“The MTRCB has the statutory authority to regulate the television and movie industry and the content shown therein, including the utterances complained in the instant case.
“The utterances herein cannot be strictly categorized as obscene and indecent, conclusively defamatory nor constituted fighting words but rather ordinary threats as understood in their totality and the context in which they were made.
“In light of the threats uttered by its program hosts, TV5 took appropriate action and imposed discipline consistent with its right and duty to regulate itself under its charter RA 7831.
“Given the exercise of self-regulation under RA 7831 and the constitutional protection on free speech, the penalties imposed by the MTRCB were no longer warranted.
“WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The MTRCB Decision is SET ASIDE for being unwarranted and effectively constituting prior restraint. SO ORDERED.”
When MTRCB’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on May 15, 2014, it elevated the case to the SC which ruled:
“The Court agrees with the CA in ruling that the MTRCB wrongfully used ‘the literal approach from the perspective of an average child’ by categorizing the Tulfo brothers' utterances as ‘vulgar, indecent, crude, coarse, threatening, defamatory and unrefined,’ and branding the same as ‘personal attacks with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime.’
“This literal approach thus led the MTRCB to wrongfully rule that the utterances made in the show, T3, were in violation of Section 3 (c) of PD 1986.
“It is fundamental law that any act that restrains or censors speech is presumed invalid. However, the freedom of speech is not absolute and the burden of overthrowing the presumption of invalidity rests on the one restraining or censoring the same in accordance with applicable law.
“In ruling whether the MTRCB's determination of the subject utterances are within the purview of Section 3 (c) of PD 1986, the Court rules in the negative.
“The CA, in defining the words ‘vulgar,’ ‘indecent,’ ‘threatening and contrary to law and/or good customs,’ and ‘defamatory,’ concluded that all the words uttered by the Tulfo brothers, taken as a whole, are more of a ‘threatened vengeance upon Santiago who allegedly mauled x x x Ramon .’
“The Court agrees with the CA. Insulting or ‘fighting words,’ together with libelous statements, defamation, obscenity or pornography, false or misleading advertisement are considered unprotected speech or low-value expression.
"’Fighting words’ are those words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace and expression endangering national security.
“The utterances made by the Tulfo brothers, although in the guise of ‘fighting words,’ were not sufficient to stir and constitute a clear and present danger to the State that is grave and imminent.
"’Fighting words,’ then, which bring about a general disorder that actually immediately threaten the State with a clear and present danger, such as in sedition and rebellion, are unprotected speech.
“On the other hand, words that are merely spewed out in a fight or quarrel between private individuals, although profane and vulgar, are still protected. The difference lies in the effect of the words to the State's breach of peace or general order.
“Thus, the Tulfo brothers' utterances are only considered threats against Santiago. Nothing more. The utterances made by them, although profane and vulgar, did not incite its audience to lawless action that may lead to a breach of peace of the State.
“With regard to the imposition of penalties, the Court affirms the conclusion reached by the CA. TV5 appropriately took action and correctly imposed discipline on the Tulfo brothers as the hosts of the show, T3, consistent with TV5's right and duty to regulate itself under its charter, Republic Act No. 7831. Given this charter, the penalties imposed by the MTRCB were thus no longer warranted.
“In this case, however, TV5 immediately suspended the Tulfo brothers with a warning that a similar act in the future would be treated more severely, if not meted the penalty of termination from TV5. MTRCB did not have to impose any longer the three-month suspension, fine and probationary status as TV5's act of self-regulation in accordance with its charter was sufficient enough.
“The Court adheres to the most important point of the CA that: ‘ny injury here suffered by the State, the viewing public and by the Santiago spouses can be appropriately remedied in the criminal or civil courts if the utterances of the Tulfos are ultimately found to constitute crimes and/or actionable wrongs.... As for the protection of the mores of the viewing public and particularly our children, TV5 already censured the Tulfos and voluntarily suspended them. The danger sought to be prevented has thus been addressed.’
“WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRMS the March 7, 2013 Decision and May 15, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125005. SO ORDERED.”