Art vs. Censorship: The Naked Truth
The garbage in the metropolis remains uncollected, an ex-president has yet to be indicted, kidnappings and crime have been on the rise, the stockmarket is unstable and the peso continues to weaken. Yet, despite these myriad of problems, Filipinos prefer to discuss to death a rather insignificant topic, the propriety of showing an alleged bold movie! However, as the issue contains various legal implications, we shall now join the bandwagon and give our two centavos worth:
Section 4, Aricle III of the 1987 Constitution states that:
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.”
In free expression cases, the Supreme Court has consistently been on the side of the exercise of the right, barring a “clear and present danger” that would warrant State interference and action. But, as asserted in Reyes v. Bagatsing, “the burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger that would justify adverse action . . . lies on the . . . authorities.”
The basis used in determining the validity of prior restraint or censorship is the “clear and present danger” test. In Pita vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that:
“There must be objective and convincing, not subjective or conjectural, proof of the existence of such clear and present danger.” “It is essential for the validity of . . . previous restraint or censorship that the . . . authority does not rely solely on his own appraisal of what the public welfare, peace or safety may require. To justify such a limitation, there must be proof of such weight and sufficiency to satisfy the clear and present danger test.”
Read full article here.
