Case Digest: Pita vs. CA – 178 SCRA 362 (1989)
Freedom of Expression | Constitutional Law
Police confiscated allegedly obscene magazines.
Facts:
The petitioner, publisher of "Pinoy Playboy" magazine, is seeking a review of the decision that dismissed his complaint for injunctive relief. The case arose from an anti-smut campaign led by the Mayor of Manila in December 1983, during which obscene and pornographic materials were seized and burned. Among the confiscated materials were issues of "Pinoy Playboy" magazine published by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a case seeking to enjoin the confiscation and prevent the restriction of the magazine's sale and circulation, arguing that it was protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
The trial court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but later denied the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction and dismissed the case. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeals acknowledged the constitutional protections of freedom of speech and against unreasonable searches and seizures but also recognized that the state has the right to protect society from obscene materials that offend public morals. The court cited existing laws punishing the authors, publishers, and sellers of obscene publications. It also noted exceptions to the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, such as consent, incident to arrest, or when conducted in a vehicle or movable structure.
Issue:
WoN the the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
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. The burden to show the existence of grave and imminent danger that would justify adverse action lies on the authorities.
The burden is on the State to demonstrate the existence of a danger, a danger that must not only be: (1) clear but also, (2) present, to justify State action to stop the speech. Meanwhile, the Government must allow it (the speech). It has no choice. However, if it acts notwithstanding that (absence of evidence of a clear and present danger), it must come to terms with, and be held accountable for, due process.
The Court is not convinced that the private respondents have shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature for which mandatory injunction had been sought below. First of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant.