CASE DIGESTS AND NOTES | BY: TINA SIUAGAN 1

1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ISSUANCES

GMA NETWORK, INC., vs. MOVIE AND TELEVISION

REVIEW AND CLASSIFCATION BOARD

FACTS

Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the

UHF Television station, EMC channel 27. On January 7,

2000, the public respondent MTRCB issued an order of

suspension to the network for the airing of MURO AMI:

THE MAKING without securing first a valid permit. The

penalty of suspension was issued pursuant to MTRCBs

Memorandum Circular 98-17, issued on December

15, 1998 and which provided for penalties for

exhibiting program without a valid permit from the

MTRCB. The GMA Network moved for reconsideration

and likewise sent the Board with a letter-protest. Both

such motion and letter-protest were denied by the

MTRCB.

Aggrieved, the petitioner sought relief from the Court of

Appeals. The appellate court, however, affirmed in toto

the decision of the MTRCB and dismissed the GMA

Networks petition. According to the Court of Appeals,

the program subject of the present dispute is a

publicity program for the movie MURO AMI. Rebutting

such finding, the GMA network avers that the subject

program is a public affairs program.

Hence, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme

Court.

ISSUE

(1) Whether or not the MTRCB has the power or

authority to review the show Muro Ami: The

Making;

(2) Whether or not the Order of Suspension

issued by MTRCB is enforceable against the

petitioner.

HELD

(1) Yes. The MTRCB is empowered under the law

to screen, review, and examine ALL motion

pictures, television programs, including

publicity materials.

MTRCBs authority of law is expressed in

Section 7 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) no. 1986:

SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR REVIEW.

-- No motion picture, television program or

related publicity material shall be imported,

exported, produced, copied, distributed, sold,

leased, exhibited or broadcasted by television

without prior permit issued by the BOARD

after review of the motion picture, television

program or publicity material. (Emphasis

mine.)

The only exemptions from the MTRCBs power

of review are those expressly mentioned in

Section 7,[6] such as (1) television programs

imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine

Government and/or departments and agencies,

and (2) newsreels.

In this case, the Supreme Court adopted the

finding that the subject program was a publicity

program for the movie Muro Ami.

Furthermore, the Honorable Court held that

GMA Networks assertion that the subject

program is a public affairs program did not

make any difference. The Court has already

ruled that public affairs programs1 are within

the purview of MTRCBs power of review.

(2) None. The Order of Suspension issued by the

MTRCB is null and void for such order was not

published or filed with the Office of the National

Administrative Registrar of the University of

the Philippines College of Law.

Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987

provides that each agency is REQUIRED to file

with the Office of the National Administrative

Register (ONAR) of the University of the

Philippines Law Center three certified copies of

every rule adopted by it. Administrative

issuances which are not published or filed

1 As described in this case, such are programs that are described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television news and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of opinions.

CASE DIGESTS AND NOTES | BY: TINA SIUAGAN 2

2 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ISSUANCES

with the ONAR are ineffective and may not

be enforced. [Emphases mine.]

Since the assailed Memorandum Circular has

not yet been filed in ONAR as of the date when

the dispute in this case arose, the same has yet

to be effective. Consequently, GMA Network

may not be bound by said circular and the latter

cannot be meted out with the sanctions

provided therein. It may not be binding upon

GMA.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY

GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated

June 18, 2001, insofar as it affirmed the public

respondent Movie and Television Review and

Classification Boards jurisdiction over Muro Ami: The

Making, is hereby AFFIRMED with the

MODIFICATION that the suspension order issued

against petitioner GMA Network, Inc. pursuant to

Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 is hereby declared null

and void.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

CASE DIGESTS AND NOTES | BY: TINA SIUAGAN 3

3 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ISSUANCES

LORENZO M. TANADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO,

and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR

BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY, AND NATIONALISM,

INC. (MABINI) vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his

capacity as Executive Assistant to the President,

HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy

Executive Assistant to the President, MELQUIADES P.

DE LA CRUZ, ETC., ET. AL.

FACTS

In April 1985, the Honorable Supreme Court ordered

respondents HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, Hon. JOAQUIN

VENUS, Melquiades Dela Cruz et.al. to publish in the

Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances

which are of general application, and unless so

published, they shall have no binding force and effect.2

In the aforesaid case, the government, speaking through

the Solicitor general, contend that the publication in the

Official Gazette is not a condition sin qua non

requirement for the effectivity of laws, where the laws

themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. In

addition, the Supreme Court in said case interpreted the

provision of ARTICLE 2 of the Civil Code in resolving the

issues therein:

ART. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following

the completion of their publication in the Official

Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall

take effect one year after such publication.

In the present case, the same petitioners filed a motion

for reconsideration/clarification, seeking clarification of

the following matters, among others, from the Supreme

Court:

(1) What is meant by law of public nature or

general applicability;

(2) Must a distinction be made between laws of

general applicability and laws which are not;

Meanwhile, the Solicitor General maintains that the

clause unless it is otherwise provided in Article 2 of

the Civil Code meant that the publication required

therein was not always imperative; that publication,

2 Dispositive portion of the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in

GR NO. L-63915, dated April 24, 1985.

when necessary, does not require that the same be

made in the Official Gazette.

ISSUE

What acts or statues are contemplated in the term

laws under Article 2 of the Civil Code?

HELD

The Supreme Court in this case explained that laws

should refer to all laws and not only to those of general

application. This is so because, strictly speaking, all laws

relate to the people IN GENERAL albeit there are some,

which do not apply to them directly.

The Court further opined:

We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of

local application and private laws, shall be published as

a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen

days after publication unless a different effectivity date

is fixed by the legislature.

Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and

executive orders promulgated by the President in the

exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are

validly delegated by the legislature or, at present,

directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative

rules and regulations must a also be published if

their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law

pursuant also to a valid delegation.

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal

in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the

administrative agency and not the public, need not be

published. Neither is publication required of the so-

called letters of instructions issued by administrative

superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be

followed by their subordinates in the performance of

their duties.

Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be

published notwithstanding that it applies to only a

portion of the national territory and directly affects only

the inhabitants of that place. All presidential decrees

must be published, including even, say, those naming a

CASE DIGESTS AND NOTES | BY: TINA SIUAGAN 4

4 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ISSUANCES

public place after a favored individual or exempting him

from certain prohibitions or requirements. The circulars

issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they

are meant not merely to interpret but to "fill in the

details" of the Central Bank Act which that body is

supposed to enforce.3

However, no publication is required of the instructions

issued by, say, the Minister of Social Welfare on the case

studies to be made in petitions for adoption or the rules

laid down by the head of a government agency on the

assignments or workload of his personnel or the

wearing of office uniforms.

Parenthetically, municipal ordinances are not covered

by this rule but by the Local Government Code.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that all laws as

above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or

as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the

Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen

days from their publication, or on another date specified

by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the

Civil Code.

SO ORDERED.

3 It may be implied from this statement that administrative rules and

regulations that are merely interpretative does not require publication in the Official Gazette.