Editorial Responsibility and the Boundaries of Obscenity in Media

Even Demata y Garzon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 228583, September 15, 2021

In today’s digital age, where content spreads at the click of a button, the question of what constitutes obscenity and who bears responsibility for its dissemination is more relevant than ever. Imagine a young student whose innocent photo ends up in a tabloid, causing her immense psychological distress. This scenario, drawn from the real-life case of Even Demata y Garzon, underscores the critical intersection of media ethics and legal accountability. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case not only clarifies the legal definition of obscenity but also sets a precedent on the extent of editorial responsibility in the Philippines.

The case revolves around Even Demata y Garzon, an editor-in-chief of a tabloid, who was charged with violating laws against obscenity and child abuse after publishing a photo of a minor alongside other content deemed offensive. The central legal question was whether the tabloid’s content was indeed obscene and if Demata could be held criminally liable for its publication and circulation.

Legal Context: Defining Obscenity and Editorial Liability

In the Philippines, obscenity is addressed under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which penalizes the sale, exhibition, or publication of obscene materials. The law does not explicitly define obscenity, leaving it to the courts to interpret based on societal standards. Over the years, the Supreme Court has adopted various tests to determine obscenity, culminating in the adoption of the three-pronged test from the U.S. case of Miller v. California.

The Miller test, as applied in the Philippines, assesses whether the material appeals to prurient interests, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This test is crucial because it balances freedom of expression with the need to protect public morals.

Additionally, Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610) addresses child abuse, including acts that cause psychological harm to minors. The law is designed to safeguard children from exploitation and abuse, which can take various forms, including the unauthorized publication of their images.

Editorial responsibility, particularly in media, is a complex issue. Editors are traditionally seen as gatekeepers of content, yet their liability under the law can be nuanced. In cases like Demata’s, the question arises: to what extent can an editor be held accountable for content published under their watch?

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Even Demata y Garzon

Even Demata y Garzon was the editor-in-chief of Bagong Toro, a tabloid that published a photo of a 17-year-old student, AAA, without her consent. The photo was part of a larger issue that included other content deemed obscene by the courts. The National Bureau of Investigation filed charges against Demata for violating Article 201 of the RPC and Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Demata guilty, imposing a fine for the obscenity charge and imprisonment for the child abuse charge. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the tabloid’s content was offensive and that Demata, as editor-in-chief, was responsible for its publication.

Demata appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the photo of AAA was not obscene and that he had no direct involvement in the tabloid’s sale or circulation. He also contended that the tabloid’s other content did not meet the legal definition of obscenity.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, reversed the lower courts’ rulings. It found that there was a variance between the crime charged (selling and circulating obscene materials) and the crime proven (publishing obscene materials). The Court emphasized that Demata’s role as editor-in-chief did not automatically make him liable for the tabloid’s sale or circulation.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court applied the Miller test to determine if the tabloid was obscene. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the tabloid appealed to prurient interests, depicted sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, or lacked serious value. The Court highlighted the need for a clear understanding of who the “average Filipino” is and what community standards apply in such cases.

Regarding the charge under RA 7610, the Court found that Demata did not intend to cause psychological harm to AAA. It noted that the photo was obtained under false pretenses, and Demata’s role was too remote to establish proximate cause for AAA’s psychological distress.

Practical Implications: Navigating Obscenity and Editorial Responsibility

The Supreme Court’s decision in Demata’s case sets a significant precedent for media outlets and editors in the Philippines. It clarifies that editorial responsibility does not extend to acts of sale or circulation unless the editor has direct involvement. This ruling may encourage media organizations to establish clearer roles and responsibilities within their teams to mitigate legal risks.

For individuals and businesses, the case underscores the importance of consent and diligence in handling personal images, especially those of minors. It also highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of obscenity, which can vary based on community standards and context.

Key Lessons:

• Editors should be aware of their legal responsibilities and the limits of their liability.
• Media outlets must ensure that content, especially involving minors, is handled with care and consent.
• The legal definition of obscenity requires careful application of established tests and consideration of community standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is considered obscene under Philippine law?

Obscenity is determined using the three-pronged Miller test, which assesses whether the material appeals to prurient interests, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious value.

Can an editor be held liable for content published in their media outlet?

An editor can be held liable for content they publish, but their liability does not extend to acts of sale or circulation unless they are directly involved.

What protections are in place for minors under RA 7610?

RA 7610 protects minors from various forms of abuse, including psychological harm caused by unauthorized use of their images.

How can media outlets ensure compliance with obscenity laws?

Media outlets should establish clear editorial guidelines, obtain consent for using images, and be aware of the legal standards for obscenity.

What should individuals do if their image is used without consent?

Individuals should seek legal advice and report the unauthorized use to the appropriate authorities, such as the National Bureau of Investigation.

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