GMA Network, Inc. vs. MTRCB

An administrative issuance prescribing penalties for exhibiting programs without a valid MTRCB permit is unenforceable and cannot serve as the basis for sanctions unless it has been filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) as required by Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987.

GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the UHF television station EMC Channel 27. The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) is the regulatory body created under Presidential Decree No. 1986, empowered to screen, review, and examine all motion pictures, television programs, and related publicity materials prior to their broadcast or exhibition. Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, dated December 15, 1998, was issued by the MTRCB to provide penalties for exhibiting programs without a valid permit from the Board. The Administrative Code of 1987, through Section 3 thereof, requires each government agency to file three certified copies of every rule adopted with the ONAR at the University of the Philippines Law Center, and administrative issuances not so filed are ineffective and may not be enforced.

GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the UHF television station EMC Channel 27. On January 7, 2000, the MTRCB issued an order of suspension against the petitioner for airing the program "Muro Ami: The Making" without first securing a permit from the Board, as required under Section 7 of PD 1986. The suspension order, signed by then Chairman Armida P.E. Siguion-Reyna, imposed a seven-day suspension from airing or broadcasting any program on EMC Channel 27, commencing immediately upon receipt of the order. The penalty was based on Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, dated December 15, 1998, which provided for the penalties for first, second, and third offenses for exhibiting programs without a valid permit to exhibit.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the suspension order and simultaneously informed the MTRCB that Channel 27 had complied with the order by going off the air since midnight of January 11, 2000. GMA Network also filed a letter-protest. The MTRCB merely "noted" the letter-protest, thereby in effect denying both the motion for reconsideration and the protest. Petitioner then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. The appellate court dismissed the petition in its June 18, 2001 decision and affirmed the January 7, 2000 suspension order in toto. Petitioner characterized the subject program as a public affairs program, while the Court of Appeals treated it as publicity material for the movie "Muro Ami."

• Classification of the Program: Petitioner claimed that "Muro Ami: The Making" was a public affairs program, not publicity material for the movie "Muro Ami," and therefore argued it should not be subject to MTRCB's prior review.
• Enforceability of Memorandum Circular No. 98-17: Petitioner challenged the validity and enforceability of Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, the basis of the suspension order, on the ground that it had not been filed with the ONAR as required by the Administrative Code of 1987.

• MTRCB Jurisdiction: Whether the MTRCB has the power or authority to review the show "Muro Ami: The Making" prior to its broadcast by television.
• Enforceability of Memorandum Circular No. 98-17: Whether Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was enforceable and binding on petitioner.

• MTRCB Jurisdiction: Yes. "Muro Ami: The Making" did not fall under any of the exemptions from MTRCB's power of review under Section 7 of PD 1986, and even if treated as a public affairs program, such programs are within the MTRCB's prior-review authority.
• Enforceability of Memorandum Circular No. 98-17: No. Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 had not been filed with the ONAR as required by Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987, rendering it ineffective and unenforceable; consequently, petitioner could not be sanctioned under it.

• MTRCB Jurisdiction: Section 3 of PD 1986 empowers the MTRCB to screen, review, and examine all motion pictures, television programs, and related publicity materials. Section 7 of the MTRCB's Rules and Regulations reinforces this by requiring that no motion picture, television program, or related publicity material shall be broadcast by television without a prior permit issued by the Board after review. The only exemptions expressly mentioned in Section 7 are (1) television programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departments and agencies, and (2) newsreels. The Court of Appeals found the subject program to be publicity for the movie "Muro Ami," placing it squarely within the MTRCB's jurisdiction. Even accepting petitioner's characterization of the program as a public affairs program, the Court had already ruled in MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation that public affairs programs — described as a variety of news treatment, a cross between pure television news and news-related commentaries, analysis, and/or exchange of opinions — are within the MTRCB's power of review. Thus, regardless of classification, the program was within the Board's prior-review authority.

• Enforceability of Memorandum Circular No. 98-17: While the MTRCB had jurisdiction over the subject program, the specific circular on which the suspension was predicated was not binding on petitioner. Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987 expressly requires each agency to file with the ONAR three certified copies of every rule adopted. Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced. A certification issued by the ONAR dated January 27, 2000 confirmed that Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 had not been registered with the ONAR. The MTRCB did not dispute this fact. Because the circular had not been filed with the ONAR, it was not yet effective and was therefore unenforceable. Petitioner was not bound by it and should not have been meted the sanction provided thereunder.

• Requirement of Filing with the ONAR — Under Section 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987, each government agency must file three certified copies of every rule adopted with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) at the University of the Philippines Law Center. Administrative issuances that are not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced. The Court applied this doctrine to invalidate the suspension order against GMA Network, because Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 — the penal circular on which the sanction was based — had not been registered with the ONAR as of January 27, 2000, and the MTRCB did not dispute this deficiency.

• MTRCB's Power of Prior Review — Section 3 of PD 1986 empowers the MTRCB to screen, review, and examine all motion pictures, television programs, and related publicity materials before broadcast or exhibition. The only exemptions are those expressly listed in Section 7: (1) television programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departments and agencies, and (2) newsreels. Public affairs programs are not exempt, as established in MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, which held that such programs — described as a cross between pure television news and news-related commentaries, analysis, and/or exchange of opinions — fall within the MTRCB's review authority.

• "Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on the enforceability of administrative regulations, serving as the ratio decidendi for nullifying the suspension order against petitioner.
• "Clearly, 'Muro Ami: The Making' (which petitioner claims to be a public affairs program) was well within the purview of MTRCB's power of prior review." — This sentence confirms that regardless of whether the program is classified as publicity material or as a public affairs program, the MTRCB's prior-review jurisdiction applies.
• "Consequently, petitioner was not bound by said circular and should not have been meted the sanction provided thereunder." — This is the dispositive reasoning on the second issue, establishing that an unenforceable administrative issuance cannot serve as the basis for imposing penalties.

• MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 575 — Followed. The Court relied on this case to hold that public affairs programs are within the MTRCB's power of prior review, thereby rejecting petitioner's argument that its program was exempt.
• Philsa International Placement and Service Corporation vs. The Hon. Secretary of Labor, et al., G.R. No. 103144, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 174 — Cited in support of the proposition that administrative issuances not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced.
• Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs. Torres, G.R. No. 101279, August 6, 1992, 212 SCRA 298 — Cited to reinforce the rule that administrative rules not filed with the ONAR are unenforceable.

• Section 3, PD 1986 ("Creating the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board") — Empowers the MTRCB to screen, review, and examine all motion pictures, television programs, and related publicity materials. Applied to confirm MTRCB's jurisdiction over "Muro Ami: The Making."
• Section 7, MTRCB Rules and Regulations (Requirement of Prior Review) — Requires that no motion picture, television program, or related publicity material shall be broadcast by television without a prior permit issued by the Board after review. Also enumerates the only exemptions from the MTRCB's power of review: government television programs and newsreels. Applied to establish that the subject program required a prior permit.
• Section 3, Administrative Code of 1987 — Requires each agency to file three certified copies of every rule adopted with the ONAR. Applied to invalidate Memorandum Circular No. 98-17, which had not been filed with the ONAR and was therefore ineffective and unenforceable.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia concurred in the decision.