Censorship in disguise
RESPONDING TO widespread public criticism of the on-the-air veiled threats, curses and macho posturing of the mainstays of one of their highest-rating “public service” programs when they were commenting on the May 6 airport scuffle between Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo and the group of actor Raymart Santiago and his wife, TV5 did right by suspending brothers Raffy, Erwin and Ben Tulfo from their “T3” program.
The network’s decision to put older brother Ramon in their stead while the three are suspended could be criticized as an in-your-face defiance of public sentiment. But in this country of small mercies, the suspension at least demonstrated that the network was still capable of restraining its own talents in furtherance of self-regulation.
The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), however, quickly stepped in and suspended the program itself. TV5 has protested the MTRCB’s preventive suspension, declaring that it “oversteps the mandate of the MTRCB, and sets it on a path that could threaten the independence and freedom of the broadcast industry.”
The network alleged that “Self-regulatory mechanisms internal to the organization and instituted within the industry and to which TV5 subscribes, were in place, enforced, and ultimately effective in disciplining program hosts Ben, Raffy, and Erwin Tulfo.”
Although its implementation of those “self-regulatory mechanisms” came a bit late, the network apparently presumes that the trio would realize that while they had gotten away with calling people names in their program in the past, insulting them, and even challenging them to fistfights, there’s actually a limit to what they can get away with.
The self-regulatory mechanisms to which TV5 alludes are admittedly flawed, and the media organizations’ compliance with them uneven and often selective. But the only acceptable form of media regulation in the Philippine context is self-regulation, external regulation being dangerous to free expression because it’s a form of abridgment of that right expressly prohibited by Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution.
The MTRCB is a government agency created by Presidential Decree 1986 during the Marcos period. Its antecedent was the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures, which was at least forthright in declaring its function as movie censorship. The MTRCB’s implementing rules and regulations give it jurisdiction over motion pictures, television broadcasts including entertainment programs whether live or taped, TV news reporting, commentaries and editorials, and publicity and other materials including advertisements promoting any movie and TV program. PD 1986 itself gives the Board such powers as closing movie houses, preventing the airing of TV programs, and prosecuting those in violation of the decree.
Chapter III of the MTRCB implementing rules and regulations declares that “All motion pictures, television programs and commercials intended for public exhibition in theaters and television, and related publicity materials and/or promotional materials, whether imported or produced in the Philippines, for the purpose of local viewing or for export, shall be subject to review and classification by the BOARD before they are exported, copied, distributed, sold, leased and exhibited.”
Since the fall of the Marcos regime the MTRCB has been involved a number of times in conflicts with free expression groups when it barred films from public viewing on the basis of its limited definition of, among others, what constitutes obscenity. But it has also prevented motion pictures from exhibition for political reasons, among them Lino Brocka’s “Ora Pro Nobis,” which argued that human rights violations were continuing post-EDSA despite the overthrow of the Marcos regime in 1986.
Despite its name, the MTRCB is still a censorship board. While also a classification board, by classifying a movie or television program as “not for public viewing” through its “X” rating, the MTRCB actually has censorship powers, contrary to Article III Section 4 which states that no law may be passed abridging free expression, press freedom and freedom of assembly.
If indeed the MTRCB is empowered to suspend TV programs (that there is no mention of that power in its implementing rules and regulations is probably the basis for TV5’s contention that the MTRCB has gone beyond its mandate by suspending “T3”), that power is similarly a form of censorship abridging press freedom and the right to free expression. The wonder of it is that such an agency has been allowed to continue this long without its Constitutionality’s being seriously challenged.
The very bottom line is that the MTRCB is a censorship board despite its name, and a remnant of martial law repression. Its abolition has been argued for decades by media advocacy, free expression, journalists’ and press freedom groups.
A purely classificatory and rating agency without censorship powers that would classify films and TV programs and shows according to what age groups can view them should be created in its place to resolve the obvious conflict between the present Board and the Constitution. The primary governing principle should be to do away with all forms of censorship in whatever guise, to respect the self-regulatory mechanisms in place in the media, encourage the development of similar mechanisms in motion pictures, and overall, to protect the right to free expression as a fundamental human right.
“to respect the self-regulatory mechanisms in place in the media”– indeed. with this, the media should be able to show the public that they are capable of regulating their own and prevent any abuse of this right from the practitioners themselves.
Or is it freedom in disguise? How do we strike a balance? Aren’t the Tulfo brothers at least civilly liable for what they did?
Last news I heard was T3 will be suspended for 3 months and will cough up P100M as penalty if I’m not mistaken.