Facts:
GMA Network, Inc., a television broadcasting company operating EMC Channel 27, aired a show titled “Muro Ami: The Making,” without securing a permit from the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) as mandated by Section 7 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1986. Following this, on January 7, 2000, the MTRCB issued an order of suspension against GMA Network, Inc. for violating the requirement, invoking Memorandum Circular 98-17, which defined penalties for such an infraction.
GMA Network, Inc. moved to reconsider the suspension order and informed MTRCB of compliance by going off-air since midnight of January 11, 2000. Alongside, it also filed a letter-protest. The MTRCB effectively denied both. GMA Network, Inc. thereafter filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition, affirming the MTRCB’s suspension order. GMA Network, Inc. then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, invoking Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issues:
There were two main issues identified for resolution:
1. Whether the MTRCB has the authority to review the show “Muro Ami: The Making” prior to its broadcast by television.
2. Whether Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was enforceable and binding on GMA Network, Inc.
Court’s Decision:
1. On the first issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, acknowledging the MTRCB’s authority over the program. The Court cited Section 3 of PD 1986, which granted the MTRCB power to review all motion pictures and television programs. “Muro Ami: The Making,” despite being argued by GMA Network, Inc. as a public affairs program, was not exempt from this requirement.
2. On the second issue, however, the Court found in favor of GMA Network, Inc. The Court ruled that Memorandum Circular 98-17, the ordinance on which the suspension was based, was not effective as it had not been filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) and thus deemed unenforceable. Consequently, the suspension order was declared null and void.
Doctrine:
This case reaffirmed the doctrine that administrative issuances must be published or filed with the ONAR to be effective and enforceable, in accordance with the Administrative Code of 1987.
Class Notes:
– The MTRCB has the authority to review all television programs prior to broadcast, excluding certain exemptions.
– Public affairs programs, despite their informational nature, are subject to MTRCB review.
– Administrative issuances not filed with the ONAR are unenforceable.
– The doctrine of prior publication/filing is central to the validity and enforceability of administrative rules.
The key legal statutes in this case are Section 3 of PD 1986 and Section 7 of the same decree, as well as the requirement in the Administrative Code of 1987 concerning the filing of administrative rules with the ONAR.
Historical Background:
The GMA Network, Inc. vs. MTRCB case occurred during a period when discussions about freedom of expression versus state regulatory powers in broadcasting were prevalent in the Philippines. The MTRCB, established in the mid-1980s, faced recurring constitutional challenges regarding its regulatory scope and the obligations of broadcasters. This case mirrors those tensions by questioning prior restraint on content and the procedural correctness of administrative bodies when imposing sanctions. The broader context includes the evolving landscape of media regulation and the strategic balancing of government oversight versus industry and artistic freedoms.
Leave a Reply