Navigating the Crossroads of Religious Freedom and State Censorship

IGLESIA NI CRISTO (INC.) VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996

Imagine turning on the TV and finding that your religious program has been banned. This was the reality for Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) when the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMPT) x-rated several of their TV series. The central legal question: Can the state censor religious expression on television?

Understanding Freedom of Religion and Expression

In the Philippines, the Constitution protects both freedom of religion and freedom of expression. These rights, however, are not absolute. The state can regulate these freedoms when their exercise poses a clear and present danger to public safety, morals, or welfare. This case delves into the delicate balance between these fundamental rights and the state’s power to censor content.

Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution 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.”

Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

For instance, while a religious group has the right to express its beliefs, it cannot incite violence or hatred against other groups under the guise of religious freedom. Similarly, the state cannot arbitrarily censor religious content simply because it disagrees with its message.

The Journey of the Iglesia Ni Cristo Case

The Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) had a television program that aired on Channels 2 and 13. This program presented INC’s religious beliefs, often comparing them with other religions. In 1992, the INC submitted several VTR tapes of their TV program to the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMPT).

The BRMPT classified these series as “X,” meaning not for public viewing, arguing that they “offend and constitute an attack against other religions.” INC pursued two courses of action:

• Appealed to the Office of the President, which reversed the BRMPT’s decision for Series No. 128.
• Filed a civil case against the BRMPT, alleging that the board acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

The trial court initially issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of INC, but later modified its decision, directing INC to refrain from attacking other religions. The BRMPT appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision, upholding the BRMPT’s power to review and censor the TV program.

The Supreme Court ultimately weighed in, with Justice Puno stating:

“Deeply ensconced in our fundamental law is its hostility against all prior restraints on speech, including religious speech. Hence, any act that restrains speech is hobbled by the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with furrowed brows.”

And further:

“The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. When the luxury of time permits, the marketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth.”

Key Lessons and Practical Implications

This case clarifies the extent to which the government can regulate religious expression in the Philippines. While the MTRCB has the power to review television programs, it cannot censor religious content simply because it criticizes other religions. The ruling emphasizes the importance of the “marketplace of ideas,” where different viewpoints can be freely expressed and debated.

Key Lessons:

• Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, is presumed invalid.
• The government cannot favor any religion by protecting it against criticism.
• The “clear and present danger” rule must be applied to justify any restriction on religious freedom.

This ruling can affect similar cases by ensuring that religious organizations are not unfairly censored. It also serves as a reminder to government agencies that their power to regulate content is limited by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and expression.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Does the MTRCB have the power to censor religious programs?

The MTRCB has the power to review television programs, including religious ones, but it cannot censor them simply because they criticize other religions. Censorship is only justified when the content poses a clear and present danger to public safety, morals, or welfare.

2. What is the “clear and present danger” rule?

The “clear and present danger” rule states that speech can only be restricted if it poses an immediate and grave threat to public safety, morals, or welfare. Hypothetical fears are not enough to justify censorship.

3. Can a religious organization say anything it wants on television?

No. Religious freedom is not absolute. Religious organizations cannot incite violence, hatred, or illegal activities under the guise of religious expression.

4. What is the role of “contemporary Filipino cultural values” in censorship decisions?

The MTRCB is directed to apply “contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard” when reviewing content. However, this standard cannot be used to suppress religious expression simply because it is unorthodox or challenges traditional beliefs.

5. What can I do if I believe my freedom of religious expression has been violated?

You can seek legal counsel and file a case in court to challenge the censorship decision. The burden is on the government to prove that the restriction is justified by a clear and present danger.

6. What are the implications of this ruling for other types of speech?

While this case specifically addresses religious speech, the principles of freedom of expression apply to other forms of speech as well. The government must have a compelling reason to restrict any form of expression and must use the least restrictive means possible.

7. How does this case relate to the separation of church and state?

The separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor any particular religion. Censoring religious content based on its criticism of other religions would violate this principle of neutrality.

ASG Law specializes in media and entertainment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.