Personal
determination by a Judge
PITA
vs CA
FACTS:
An
anti-smut campaign initiated by the Mayor of City of Manila, Ramon Bagatsing,
seized & confiscated from dealers, distributors, news stand owners and
peddlers along sidewalks, magazines, publications and other reading materials
believe to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized
materials in public at University belt along CM Recto Avenue. Among the
publications seized, and later burned was “Pinoy Playboy” magazines and
Co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita.
Pita
assailed, Preliminary Injunction, as to whether or not the defendants and or
their agents can without a Court order confiscate or seize plaintiffs magazine
before any judicial finding is made on which is said may be obscene or not.
HELD:
Petition
is GRANTED, reversed & set-aside.
RATIONALE:
TEST OF OBSCENITY (PEOPLE
vs KOTTINGER)
1.
Whether
the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a
publication or other article charged is being obscene may fall.
2.
Those
that shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency
PASEI vs DRILON (Definition
of Police Power)
State authority to enact legislation
that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote
GENERAL WELFARE
PROCEDURE (OBSCENE
MATERIALS)
1.
The
authorities must apply for the issuance of a Search Warrant from a Judge, in in
their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order;
2.
The
authorities must convince the Court that the materials sought to be seized are “obscene”,
and pose a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER of an evil substantive enough to warrant a
State interference and action;
3.
The
Judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed “obscene” the question
is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on his hand’s sound discretion;
4.
If,
in the opinion of the Court, probable cause exists, it may issue the Search
Warrant;
5.
Paper
suit, Article 201;
6.
Any conviction
is subject to appeal
