Pita vs.
Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362, October 05, 1989
Facts:
On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated
by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of the
Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxilliary Services Bureau, Western Police
District, INP of the Metropolitan PoliceForce of Manila, seized and confiscated
from dealers, distributors, news-stand owners and peddlers along Manila
sidewalks,magazines, publications and other reading materials believed tobe
obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in
public at the University belt along C.M. RectoAvenue, Manila, in the presence
of Mayor Bagatsing and severalofficers and members of various student
organizations. Among the publications seized, and later burned, was “Pinoy
Playboy” magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita.
On December 7, 1983, plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction againstMayor Bagatsing and
Narcisco Cabrera, as superintendent of Western Police District of the City of
Manila, seeking to enjoinand/or restrain said defendants and their agents from
confiscating plaintiff’s magazines or from otherwise preventing the sale
orcirculation thereof claiming that the magazine is a decent, artisticand
educational magazine which is not per se obscene, and that the publication is
protected by the Constitutional guarantees offreedom of speech and of the press.
On January 11, 1984, the trial court issued an Order setting the case for
hearing on January 16, 1984 “for the parties toadduce evidence on the question
of whether the publication ‘PinoyPlayboy Magazine’ alleged (sic) seized,
confiscated and/or burnedby the defendants, are obscence per se or not.”
On February 3, 1984, the trial court promulgated the Orderappealed from
denying the motion for a writ of preliminaryinjunction, and dismissing the case
for lack of merit. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court, stating that
that freedom of the press is not without restraint, as the state has the right to
protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals, as
indeed we have laws punishing the author, publishers and sellers of obscene
publications.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the confiscation of the obscene materials violates the
Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
2. Whether or not the Anti-Smut Campaign constitutes censorship, violating
the freedom of speech.
Ruling:
1. Yes. It is basic that searches and seizures may be done only through a
judicial warrant; otherwise, they become unreasonable and subject to
challenge. In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP, we countermanded the
orders of the Regional Trial Court authorizing the search of the premises
of We Forum and Metropolitan Mail, two Metro Manila dailies, by
reason of a defective warrant. We have greater reason here to reprobate
the questioned raid, in the complete absence of a warrant, valid or invalid.
The fact that the instant case involves an obscenity rap makes it no
different from Burgos, a political case, because, and as we have indicated,
speech is speech, whether political or “obscene”.
2. Yes. The Court held:
Undoubtedly, “immoral” lore or literature comes within the
ambit of free expression, although not its protection. In free
expression cases, this Court has consistently been on the side of the
exercise of the right, barring a “clear and present danger” that
would warrant State interference and action. But, so we asserted in
Reyes v. Bagatsing, “the burden to show the existence of grave and
imminent danger that would justify adverse action lies on the
authorities.” “There must be objective and convincing, not
subjective or conjectural, proof of the existence of such clear and
present danger.” “It is essential for the validity of previous
restraint or censorship that the authority does not rely solely on his
own appraisal of what the public welfare, peace or safety may
require.” “To justify such a limitation, there must be proof of such
weight and sufficiency to satisfy the clear and present danger test.”
