Manila’s Censorship Law Rears Its Ugly Head

By Pete Lacaba

This is going to be a long one, but I can’t help myself, I’m really pissed off.

HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE MANILA ORDINANCE NO. 7780?

Has anyone ever heard of the City of Manila’s Ordinance No. 7780–or of its obvious clone, House Bill No. 3305?

Manila Ordinance 7780 is entitled “AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING THE PRINTING, PUBLICATION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF OBSCENE AND PORNOGRAPHIC ACTS AND MATERIALS AND THE PRODUCTION, RENTAL, PUBLIC SHOWING AND VIEWING OF INDECENT AND IMMORAL MOVIES, TELEVISION SHOWS, MUSIC RECORDS, VIDEO AND VHS TAPES, LASER DISCS, THEATRICAL OR STAGE AND OTHER LIVE PERFORMANCES, EXCEPT THOSE REVIEWED BY THE MOVIE, TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB).”

House Bill 3305 is entitled “AN ACT PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING THE PRODUCTION, PRINTING, PUBLICATION, IMPORTATION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF OBSCENE AND PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS, AND THE EXHIBITION OF LIVE SEXUAL ACTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 201OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED.”

HB 3305 was, without much fanfare, approved by the House of Representatives only last February 5, 2008. But it remains a bill and does not have the force of law as of today, unless and until it (or a similar bill) is approved by the Senate and signed into law by the President. So, for now, it’s not a major problem.

Ordinance 7780, however, was enacted by the City Council of Manila at its regular session on January 28, 1993, and was subsequently approved by Mayor Alfredo S. Lim on February 19, 1993–more than 15 years ago! So the ordinance is in effect, and is therefore a pesky problem, at least in the Noble and Ever Loyal City of Manila.

I will have to confess that I had never heard of this jurassic (make that pre-jurassic) city ordinance, or its more recent congressional clone, until recently. That was sometime after July 7, 2008, the day a group of complainants identifying themselves as “Pastors of and Preachers in different Churches in Metro Manila”–all Baptists, by the way, and only one of whom seems to be a Manila resident–filed a “joint complaint affidavit” against four magazines (Playhouse, Playboy, FHM, and Maxim) and three tabloids (Sagad, Hataw, and Baliktaran Toro) for violating the Revised Penal Code and Ordinance 7780.

Full disclosure: I work for YES! magazine, which is published by Summit Media Publishing, which also publishes FHM. So, yes, I am an interested party in this case–but I am also an interested party because for years and years now I have been railing against comstockery (look it up in the dictionary, or check out Anthony Comstock in the encyclopedia) and taking part in efforts opposing censorship and upholding freedom of expression.

Both Manila Ordinance 7780 and House Bill 3305 purport to be anti-obscenity and anti-pornography measures. I’m no legal expert, but it seems to me that both of these measures are really censorship laws and clearly go against the provision in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines that states:

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press…” (Section 4, Article III, “Bill of Rights”).

The censorious Manila Ordinance 7780, for instance, gives this definition of the term “obscene” in Section 2:

“Obscene shall refer to any material or act that is indecent, erotic, lewd or offensive, or contrary to morals, good customs or religious beliefs, principles or doctrines, or to any material or act that tends to corrupt or deprive the human mind, or is calculated to excite impure imagination or arouse prurient interest, or is unfit to be seen or heard, or which violates the proprieties of language or behavior, regardless of the motive of the printer, publisher, seller, distributor, performer or author of such act or material, such as but not limited to:

“1. Printing, showing, depicting or describing sexual acts;
“2. Printing, showing, depicting or describing children in sexual acts;
“3. Printing, showing, depicting or describing completely nude human bodies; and
“4. Printing, showing, depicting or describing the human sexual organs or the female breasts.”

Let’s take a closer look at that definition or description or whatchamacallit.

Any “act that is … offensive” is obscene? Offensive to whom? Offensive in what way? Spitting in public, or picking or blowing your nose in public, may be considered offensive by a lot of people I know. Does that make it obscene? Well, maybe–but certainly not in the way that Ordinance 7780 understands the word, and it certainly would not merit, for the offensive offender, “imprisonment of one year or fine of five thousand pesos, or both.”

Any “material or act that is … contrary to … religious beliefs, principles or doctrines” is obscene? Wait a minute. How did religion get into a secular ordinance? Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? If a modern-day Martin Luther publishes a modern-day 95 Theses contrary to specific religious beliefs, principles, or doctrines, would he be guilty of an obscene act, or would his work be proscribed as obscene material?