|
MOCKING OUR MORAL SENSIBILITIES
By
ATTY. JO M. IMBONG 1
Briefing Paper for the
NATIONAL CONSULTATION-CONSOLIDATION-WORKSHOP
ON ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY OF GOVERNMENT-BUSINESS-CIVIL SOCIETY
March 21, 2001, Camp Crame, Quezon City
|
Last Friday, in his weekly television forum at ZOE Channel, Bro. Eddie Villanueva’s first question to the panel was, "What is pornography?" For you in this hall, even before you came here, you already knew what pornography is. It is of course of great help that our laws are also quite clear on what constitutes pornography.
Your next question then should be: "Is pornography illegal?" You also know the answer to that. Of course, it is illegal.
I could read your mind. Your next question by this time would be: "If pornography is illegal, then why is it so prevalent, as if it were legal?"
Freedom of Expression
But why indeed is pornography prevalent? Our 1987 Constitution, as you know, holds as sacred Freedom of Expression. That this is a basic and natural human right comes strongly in the way that the Constitution is worded. It states:
|
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. (Article III, Sec. 4, Constitution) |
Encompassing as it does not just words (as in literature, songs), but images as well (as in moving pictures, paintings, cartoons, other graphic representations), this is where the problem starts. This sacrosanct right is the very pretext used to the hilt by advocates of pornography. Herein lies the crux of the problem, because artistic expression is included in Freedom of Expression.
We are then led to make a conclusion that, "If that is the case, since there is freedom of expression (call it even artistic expression), then there is no way we can implement anti-pornography laws." Right?
Wrong, my friends! The law is not in vain! For like all other constitutional rights, Freedom of Expression has its limits. The right is not absolute. There are basic limitations to the exercise of one’s rights, as when in the exercise of that right, you prejudice the public interest.
Our Legal System is Founded on Morality
Our political system swears by morality. The Constitution in its 18 Articles is replete with paradigms of "truth, justice, freedom, equality, and peace," of a public trust to serve "the common good" and to promote "the general welfare." In fact, the same Constitution requires the government to support "the primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth ... in moral character." 2
But of primordial application to our exercise today, is P.D. 1986 which created the MTRCB empowering that body to disapprove the exhibition of motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials which in its judgment, applying contemporary Filipino cultural values, are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and /or good customs.3 The Penal Code provides the sanctions for against exhibitors of immoral and indecent films, penalizing it as a serious offense under Article 201. Which is saying that a thing which is immoral is illegal. It is also saying that anything that is immoral is evil, and vice versa, as by our human nature we call that which is evil -- immoral.
One of the acts considered immoral and prejudicial to public interest ever since classical times is pornography. In Holy Writings -- the Old Testament, the Koran, all religions abhor pornography. That obscenity is evil and injurious to man has been validated by scientific studies. In the United States, the Final Report of the Attorney-General’s Commission on Pornography 4 confirms the sex magazine-rape rate relationship.5 The exercise of the Freedom of Expression has its limits, and government can enforce those limits. That is why we have our laws against pornography.
Which brings us to the next problem.
The Clash Between Freedom of Expression and Government Regulation
We now have two competing interests: the individual’s freedom of expression, versus the duty of the State to regulate that freedom "if there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that [the State] has a right to prevent." 6 When these two interests clash, under ordinary circumstances the protagonists will end up before an arbiter -- the court -- who must make a determination of a basis for issuing a search warrant. For we cannot take the law into your own hands.
But I said, "in ordinary circumstances," for our laws also allow a warrantless arrest and a citizen’s arrest. That same law, however, places the ultimate determination of culpability in a court of law, which examines in each and every situation whether a contested search or seizure was warranted.
So, if pornography is illegal, why is it plenteous and abounding?
(A case of dereliction of official duty?)
Put another way, the question should be: Are certain officials of MTRCB betraying the law? For why are there no criminal cases filed? Why no convictions? The paucity of dockets accusing a movie producer, a bold star, or a video store of violating Article 201 of the Penal Code does not speak well of the state of our law enforcement. It does not speak well either of the state of the MTRCB. Why do I say this?
During the tenure of the former Chair Armida Siguion-Reyna, it was her consistent submission that the Board is not a censoring body, but merely a classifying body. We probably kept quiet about that. Some even believed that. But nothing is farther from the truth. I invite you to take a look at Section 3 (c) of P.D. 1986:
Powers and Functions. -- The BOARD shall have the following functions, powers and duties:
x x x
(c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials ... which, in the judgment of the BOARD applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs ... such as but not limited to:
x x x
iv) Those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for ... pornography;
|
The same section continues:
|
... provided, however, that deletions or cuts must not be made on the master negative of the films, and that such master negative shall be deposited with the Film Archives of the Philippines ... (Ibid.) |
As a matter of fact, one of the premises underlying the creation of the MTRCB, as expressed in one of the Whereas clauses of P.D. 1986, is that:
|
A regulatory body must not only function in reviewing and censoring films or television programs brought before it but must also initiate the plans and cooperate with the industry to improve, upgrade and make viable the industry as one source of fueling the national economy. |
Any man of the street can understand the word "delete" or "censor." You do not need a legal mind to discern the meaning of the words "to cut. " And yet, the officials of MTRCB do not know its meaning. Not only that. They also refuse to see that the word "delete" appears in the law that gives them their authority. And in their refusal to see it, they did away with that word altogether. What do I mean here? In 1998, Ms. Siguion-Reyna issued Rules and Regulations for MTRCB. What about it? Before 1998, the MTRCB already had Rules and Regulations, which was registered by MTRCB in a year earlier (1997) with the U.P. National Administrative Register as required by the Revised Administrative Code. So you ask, "Why would MTRCB change the rules after only one year?"
The answer will readily appear: If you compare the 1998 Rules with the 19987 Rules, you will notice that stringent rules against pornography in the latter were deleted:
1. Chapter III of the 1997 Rules was mangled. In particular, Section 6 was totally removed. It reads, to wit:
|
Section 6. Authority of the Board -- The Board shall delete scenes and disapprove film prints which are immoral, indecent, contrary to law and good customs ..." |
2. Section 7 of Chapter III defined pornography. It was deleted. It would have read as follows:
|
Section 7. Pornographic Material and Violence
a) Pornographic Material and/or Scenes not Suited for Public Exhibition - A film print and/or material shall be considered pornographic should the same, in the Board’s exercise of the utmost consideration and evaluation, applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, be objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and or good customs, or if the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. |
Central to Section 7 (a) above is its enumeration of obscene and pornographic scenes, which enumeration was also expunged in the1998 Rules. This enumeration reads as follows:
|
x x x the following scenes shall be considered immoral and indecent:
All explicit sexual acts, actual or simulated, such as but not limited to, sexual intercourse, masturbation, mashing, licking and fondling of sex organs;
Lewd frontal nudity and/or exhibition of private parts, such as but not limited to, female breasts exposure and pubic hair exposure (naked or see-through clothing, such as lace bikinis, wet T-shirts and transparent negligee).
All sexual pumping scenes and movements, whether the subjects are clothed or unclothed;
Sexual exploitation and abuse of children, such as paedophilia and acts of incest;
Perverted sexual acts, such as, homosexual and lesbian sexual acts, sodomy, necrophilia and 'zooerstia’,
Deliberate panning of the camera to achieve a lewd and malicious close-up of sexual parts."
|
Even in the absence of the foregoing enumeration and in the light of the clear provisions of P.D. 1986 alone, how could a government agency be unaccountable for the production, approval and exhibition of SUTLA, TALONG, PARAISO NI EFREN, et cetera, and lately the much vaunted LIVE SHOW?
Are the "liberalized" 1998 Rules valid?
|
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the constitution. (Art. 7, New Civil Code) |
Public officers merely execute the law. Is the approval of LIVE SHOW, even for Adult Viewing, lawful?
|
Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. (Art. 5, Ibid.) |
What about dereliction of duty?
|
Art.208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. -- The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses. (Revised Penal Code) |
Today, whether its offensive FM deejays, PULP magazine, BULGAR, REMATE, Andrew E’s vulgar Rap, even the venerable PHILIPPINE STAR’s ads -- they all are somehow accountable, under various strongly worded laws and Codes of Ethics.7
Radio Broadcasts: The Radio Code
of the KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER SA PILIPINAS (KBP)
|
H. SEX AND VIOLENCE
x x x
7. Explicit sexual acts or sex perversion of any kind must never be presented. [Listen to 666 AM band in their afternoon soap operas.]
8. Crime, violence, sex and all matters related to these must be treated with the greatest care and good taste.
9. The use of objectionable words, actions and similar manifestations which are obscene, blasphemous, profane or vulgar shall not be allowed."
I. DRAMA PROGRAMMING
x x x
3. Drama programs must accentuate positive moral and social values.
x x x
L. MUSIC
x x x
15. All radio stations shall desist from playing records with contents that run counter with the Filipino moral and religious values.
x x x
P. GENERAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
x x x
9. Programs shall not use dialogue, actions and other similar manifestations which are obscene, blasphemous, profane or vulgar.
x x x
11. The use of objectionable words and phrases, or word which have acquired undesirable or offensive implications should be avoided."
|
Television Broadcasts: The Television Code
of the KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER SA PILIPINAS:
|
GENERAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
x x x
10. Programs shall not use dialogues, actions and other similar manifestations which are obscene, blasphemous, profane or vulgar.
11. Ad-libs/spiels/Scripts/Languages
a. Coarse, vulgar jokes which may offend the sensibilities of the audience and the viewers shall be taboo. Included in the category of vulgar jokes are off-color jokes or double entendre (double meaning) jokes.
x x x
12. Dance Sequence/Skits
Good taste should prevail in the presentation of skits and dance numbers. Thus, care should be taken that dancers or performers are properly attired.
Extreme close-ups of the human anatomy shall be done in good taste.
13. Attires and Decorum
All hosts/emcees/casts/regular on-air personalities should be properly dressed for their program taking into account not only what is fashionable but also what is decent and proper for the medium.
Performers in programs should always observe decency and proper decorum and shall not be allowed to perform under the influence of drugs or liquor.
RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS CHILDREN
x x x
6. Children’s programs should portray respect for adult authority, law and order, good moral and clean, healthful living. Consideration should also be given to the development in children of good manners, a sense of responsibility, a correct concept of courage opposed to the fantasy they see in some cartoon characters.
x x x
10. Children’s programs shall not emphasize perverted sex and undue violence.
|
The VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD
REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS
|
CHAPTER IX
VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
Section 21. Violations - Violations are classified as follows: Grave Violations
x x x
3. Commercially possessing, producing, reproducing, selling, renting, distributing, disposing of, or publicly exhibiting videograms of hard-core pornography;
x x x
Section 20. Authority to inspect -- In the exercise of its regulatory and supervisory powers, the Board or its duly authorized representative shall be allowed free and unhindered entry into the business premises of all producers, reproducers, distributors, dealers, retailers, and public exhibitors of videograms, in order to inspect such videograms and to determine compliance with P.D. 1987 and these Rules. |
The CODE OF ETHICS FOR ADVERTISING (January 31,1996)
The Code is enforced through industry self-regulation.
|
Complaints for alleged violation of this Code shall be handled by the Advertising Content Regulation Committee (ACRC) in accordance with its rules of procedures. (Article VI, Sanctions) |
As to the coverage of the Code of Ethics for Advertising:
|
Section 1. This Code shall apply to the Philippine advertising community which includes advertisers, advertising agencies, media and advertising support groups. (Article II) |
What are some standards set in the Code?
|
4. Profanity, obscenity and vulgarity, or presentations which are offensive to contemporary standards of decency or morals shall not be allowed, even when understood only by a part of the audience.
5. Indecent exposure of the human body shall not be allowed. Some exposure of the human body may be allowed in advertisements when in good taste and relevant to the product or service being advertised, the situation being portrayed or the audience being addressed. However, suggestive portrayals shall not be allowed.
6. Advertisements should not depict or explicit persons as sex objects and should not carry any sexual double entendres. |
Conclusion
Allow me to close this briefing paper by calling to mind the wise observations of a profound social thinker, a good man, and a man of media of the century past. Although he was speaking for his country over fifty years ago, his words might just as well apply to our times and to our nation. He said:
"The principal reason for sex deification is loss of belief in God. Once people lose God, they lose the purpose of life; and when the purpose of living is forgotten, the universe becomes meaningless. Man then tries to forget his emptiness in the intensity of a momentary experience. ...
Not the will but instinct now reigns supreme, as the standards of morality give way to the practices of the barnyard. ... In leaving the right road, they deny that there is a right road; ... today, people throw away the map."8
Thank you, and may we all have a fruitful day.
1 Executive Director, Family Media Advocacy Foundation (FAMAF) & Trustee, Philippine Alliance Against Pornography (PAAP).
2 Article II, Section 12, Constitution.
3 Section 3 (c), Presidential Decree 1986.
4 1986: Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville, Tennesee, 1986.
5 The Report also states, in part: "It is clear that many sexually explicit materials, particularly of the commercial variety, that are obviously designed to be arousing, are, in fact, arousing, both to offenders and non-offenders." (p. 289).
6 Reyes vs. Bagatsing, G.R. No. 65366, Nov. 9,1983, 125 SCRA 553., citing Winters v. New York, 333 US 507 (1948), and cited in Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katigbak, No. L-69500, July 22,1985, 137 SCRA 717.
7 Taken from: Teodoro & Kabatay, Mass Media Laws and Regulations in the Philippines, 1998: Quezon City, Philippines, Asian Media Information and Communications Centre.
8 Bishop Fulton Sheen.
|