11/4/24, 9:57 AM Gonzalez vs.
Katigbak
Title
Gonzalez vs. Katigbak
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. L-69500 Jul 22, 1985
A movie production company challenges the classification of their film as "For Adults
Only" by the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television, raising issues of
artistic expression and the proper test for obscenity. The court rules that while there
was an abuse of discretion, it was not grave enough to dismiss the classification,
affirming the importance of freedom of expression and setting the standard for
determining obscenity in motion pictures.
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69500)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The case "Gonzalez v. Katigbak" involves petitioners Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez
(representing Malaya Films), Lino Brocka, Jose F. Lacaba, and Dulce Q. Saguisag.
Respondents are Chairman Maria Kalaw Katigbak, General Wilfredo C. Estrada (Ret.),
and the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMPT).
The dispute centers on the BRMPT's classification of the film "Kapit sa Patalim" as "For
Adults Only."
On October 23, 1984, a BRMPT sub-committee granted a permit to exhibit the film with
certain changes and deletions under this classification.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the classification was baseless.
On November 12, 1984, the BRMPT affirmed the sub-committee's ruling.
Petitioners filed a certiorari proceeding on January 10, 1985, challenging the
classification as an impermissible restraint on artistic expression.
Respondents argued the petition was moot because the BRMPT had revoked its earlier
resolution and granted a permit to exhibit the film without deletions, but still under the
"For Adults Only" classification.
Petitioners amended their petition on January 25, 1985, maintaining that the
classification lacked legal and factual basis and was an impermissible restraint on
artistic expression.
The case was decided on July 22, 1985.
Issue:
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/gonzalez-v-katigbak?q=Gonzales+vs+Katigbak 1/2
11/4/24, 9:57 AM Gonzalez vs. Katigbak
1. Was the classification of the film "Kapit sa Patalim" as "For Adults Only" by the BRMPT
without legal and factual basis, constituting an impermissible restraint on artistic
expression?
2. Did the BRMPT commit a grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as "For Adults
Only"?
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that while there was an abuse of discretion by the BRMPT in
classifying the film as "For Adults Only," it was not grave enough to warrant the
dismissal of the classification.
2. The petition for certiorari was dismissed on the ground that there were not enough
votes to rule that there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of the film.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized the importance of freedom of expression, particularly in the
context of artistic and literary works.
Motion pictures are significant both as a medium for communication and artistic
expression.
Censorship or prior restraint is generally impermissible unless there is a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.
The law frowns upon obscenity, which is not protected by the constitutional
guarantees of free speech and press.
The test for obscenity involves whether the material, taken as a whole, appeals to
prurient interest according to contemporary community standards.
The Court found that the BRMPT's perception of obscenity was unduly restrictive and
that there was an abuse of discretion.
However, the abuse was not considered grave enough to invalidate the classification.
The Court also highlighted that television, unlike motion pictures, reaches a broader
audience, including children, and thus may warrant a less liberal approach to
censorship.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/gonzalez-v-katigbak?q=Gonzales+vs+Katigbak 2/2
