Gonzales v kalaw katigbak digest

Press freedom may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. The general principle is that freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the exemption.

Gonzales v kalaw katigbak digest

Gonzales v Katigbak G. Antonio Gonzales, president of Malaya Films, claimed that his film Kapit sa Patalim, was rated for adults only by a subcommittee of the movie review board together with the required cuts and scene deletions.

He justified that these requirements were without basis and were restrains on artistic expression. He adduced that the film is an integral whole and all its portions, including those to which the Board now offers belated objection, are essential for the integrity of the film.

Viewed as a whole, there is no basis even for the vague speculations advanced by the Board Gonzales v kalaw katigbak digest basis for its classification. He appealed to the movie review board but the same affirmed the decion of the sub committee.

When Gonzales appealed to the supreme court, the board claimed that the deletions were removed and the requirement to submit the master negative was taken out but the film was still rated for adults only.

The petition was amended to contest the rating only. Was the rating made with grave avuse of discretion Note I put in those regarding obscenity for future purposes Held: Motion pictures are important both as a medium for the communication of Ideas and the expression of the artistic impulse Burstyn-importance of motion pictures as an organ of public opinion lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform No clear dividing line between what affords knowledge and that of pleasure or else there will be a diminution to a right to self-expression Bagatsing- Press freedom may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment.

This is not to say that such freedom, as is the freedom of speech, absolute. However, there must be in exceptional circumstances a sine qua non for the meaningful exercise of such right without denying the freedom from liability.

Freedom from censorship is a settled principle in our jurisdiction. Mutuc- board of review is limited to classification of films to safeguard other constitutional objections, hence the GP, PG, or R ratings. That is to abide by the principle that freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the exemption.

The power to exercise prior restraint is not to be presumed, rather the presumption is against its validity The test, to repeat, to determine whether freedom of expression may be limited is the clear and present danger of an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent.

Such danger must not only be clear but also present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element cannot be ignored.

Gonzales v kalaw katigbak digest

Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. Where movies are concerned, censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest.

Roth- "All Ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance — unorthodox Ideas, controversial Ideas, even Ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion — have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

Roth- The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons The test was whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.

Some material can legitimately deal with sex and its effects on susceptible persons. Such a censorship can be considered violative of the constitution.

On the other hand, the substituted standard provides safeguards adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity. Roth- Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.

The portrayal of sex, e. Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages; it is one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern. In the Philippine context, E. Moreover, as far as the question of sex and obscenity are concerned, it cannot be stressed strongly that the arts and letters "shall be under the patronage of the State.

Given this constitutional mandate, It will be less than true to its function if any government office or agency would invade the sphere of autonomy that an artist enjoys.GONZALES schwenkreis.com KATIGBAK G.R. No. L, 22 nd July Facts: The principal petitioner is Jose Antonio U.

Gonzales v kalaw katigbak digest

Gonzalez, President of the Malaya Films, a movie production outfit duly registered as a single proprietorship with the Bureau of Domestic Trade. chairman maria kalaw katigbak, general wilfredo c.

estrada (ret.), and the BOARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION PICTURES AND TELEVISION (BRMPT), respondents. Irene R. Cortes, Perfecto V. Fernandez, Haydee Yorac and Joker P.

Arroyo for petitioners. Jul 22,  · CASE DIGEST: Gonzales Vs katigbak G.R. No. L July 22, JOSE ANTONIO U.

GONZALEZ in behalf of MALAYA FILMS, LINO BROCKA, JOSE F. LACABA, and DULCE Q. SAGUISAG, petitioners, vs. CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, GENERAL WILFREDO C. ESTRADA (Ret.), and THE BOARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION PICTURES AND TELEVISION . Feb 01,  · gonzalez vs kalaw katigbak FACTS: Petitioner was the producer of the movie Kapit sa Patalim which the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Televisions allowed on condition that certain deletions were made and that it was shown on adults only.

Essay on Gonzales V Kalaw Katigbak Digest any other legitimate public interest. * On the matter of obscenity, the Court cited Roth v. US: * "All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests.

chairman maria kalaw katigbak, general wilfredo c. estrada (ret.), and the board of review for motion pictures and television (brmpt), respondents.

Irene R. Cortes, Perfecto V. Fernandez, Haydee Yorac and Joker P. Arroyo for petitioners.

Gonzales v Katigbak G.R. No. L July 22,