Group finds issues in ordinance

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

THE reincarnation of the Provincial Government’s proposed anti-tabloid ordinance, now renamed the Anti-Obscenity Ordinance, triggers discussion among the members of the Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC).

After a review by the Cebu Media Legal Aid (Cemla) and feedback from lawyer Earl Bonachita, president of the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the council found two provisions in the draft law that violates Constitutional guarantees.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

“These new provisions (are) constitutionally flawed since it amounts to unreasonable search and seizure, and offensive as they constitute prior restraint and violate due process of law,” the council said in a statement following its last quarterly meeting for 2011 yesterday.

The “flawed” provisions refer to section 9(b) and 9(c) of the proposed anti-obscenity measure.

The first grants unto a to-be-created Anti-Obscenity Board (AOB) the power to “conduct inspection and/or investigation on any and all printed or written materials for sale, distribution, or exhibition to the public, to see if such materials are not violative of the ordinance.”

The second, meanwhile, grants unto the same board the “power to recommend to the provincial governor the confiscation or forfeiture of any and all printed or written materials upon finding the same to be obscene.”

Represented in yesterday’s council meeting by its president, lawyer Elias L. Espinoza, Cemla maintains that the proposed AOB cannot give itself the power to “inspect and investigate” because only the court can order seizures.

Besides, Espinoza stressed, even the court observes the proper legal steps as enumerated by the Supreme Court in Pita vs. Court of Appeals.

On the governor’s authority to confiscate upon finding that a publication contains obscenity, Cemla said this power is reserved for the courts.

“Obscenity, the Supreme Court has always ruled, is an issue that is proper for judicial determination and should be treated on a case-to-case basis and on the judge’s sound discretion. It is not for a board or the governor to determine obscenity,” the council’s statement read.

The provisions of Sec. 9(b) and 9(c) in the draft ordinance followed the move of the Cebu Provincial Board (PB) to scrap the original measure – the anti-tabloid ordinance.

CCPC also opposed that measure for being “ambiguous and misinformed, having declared tabloids as contraband and equated tabloids with obscenity.”

The CCPC’s position was shared by other sectors, including the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas.

The PB overhauled the measure but, in so doing, came up with the proposed ordinance creating the AOB and giving it powers.

“Cemla and CCPC recognize the authority of the Provincial Board to enact ordinances aimed to promote the general welfare, as long as they don’t infringe on freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution,” the CCPC statement read.

During its last en banc meeting for 2011, the CCPC board also lauded the initiative of Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao (4th District, Isabela) to amend the Revised Penal Code provision on libel by reducing the prescription period and limiting venues.

If approved, his amendment will give people intending to file libel charges against journalists six months from the time of discovery to initiate their criminal action.

The current period is one year.

The second proposed area of amendment, meanwhile, is seen to put an end to using the court to harass community journalists.

Under the amendment, a public official who intends to file a complaint against a journalist can no longer file it in his hometown or the place where his office is located. The complaint can only be filed in the principal area of business of the publication he or she intends to sue.