Ka Pete: August 2008

This is a bit long, but I can't help myself, I'm really pissed off.

HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE MANILA ORDINANCE NO. 7780?

Has anyone ever heard of the City of Manila's Ordinance No. 7780--or of its obvious clone, House Bill No. 3305?

Manila Ordinance 7780 is entitled "AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING THE PRINTING, PUBLICATION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF OBSCENE AND PORNOGRAPHIC ACTS AND MATERIALS AND THE PRODUCTION, RENTAL, PUBLIC SHOWING AND VIEWING OF INDECENT AND IMMORAL MOVIES, TELEVISION SHOWS, MUSIC RECORDS, VIDEO AND VHS TAPES, LASER DISCS, THEATRICAL OR STAGE AND OTHER LIVE PERFORMANCES, EXCEPT THOSE REVIEWED BY THE MOVIE, TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB)."

House Bill 3305 is entitled "AN ACT PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING THE PRODUCTION, PRINTING, PUBLICATION, IMPORTATION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF OBSCENE AND PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS, AND THE EXHIBITION OF LIVE SEXUAL ACTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 201OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED."

HB 3305 was, without much fanfare, approved by the House of Representatives only last February 5, 2008. But it remains a bill and does not have the force of law as of today, unless and until it (or a similar bill) is approved by the Senate and signed into law by the President. So, for now, it's not a major problem.

Ordinance 7780, however, was enacted by the City Council of Manila at its regular session on January 28, 1993, and was subsequently approved by Mayor Alfredo S. Lim on February 19, 1993--more than 15 years ago! So the ordinance is in effect, and is therefore a pesky problem, at least in the Noble and Ever Loyal City of Manila.

I will have to confess that I had never heard of this jurassic (make that pre-jurassic) city ordinance, or its more recent congressional clone, until recently. That was sometime after July 7, 2008, the day a group of complainants identifying themselves as "Pastors of and Preachers in different Churches in Metro Manila"--all Baptists, by the way, and only one of whom seems to be a Manila resident--filed a "joint complaint affidavit" against four magazines (Playhouse, Playboy, FHM, and Maxim) and three tabloids (Sagad, Hataw, and Baliktaran Toro) for violating the Revised Penal Code and Ordinance 7780.

Full disclosure: I work for YES! magazine, which is published by Summit Media Publishing, which also publishes FHM. So, yes, I am an interested party in this case--but I am also an interested party because for years and years now I have been railing against comstockery (look it up in the dictionary, or check out Anthony Comstock in the encyclopedia) and taking part in efforts opposing censorship and upholding freedom of expression.

Both Manila Ordinance 7780 and House Bill 3305 purport to be anti-obscenity and anti-pornography measures. I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that both of these measures are really censorship laws and clearly go against the provision in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines that states:

"No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press..." (Section 4, Article III, "Bill of Rights").

The censorious Manila Ordinance 7780, for instance, gives this definition of the term "obscene" in Section 2:

"Obscene shall refer to any material or act that is indecent, erotic, lewd or offensive, or contrary to morals, good customs or religious beliefs, principles or doctrines, or to any material or act that tends to corrupt or deprive the human mind, or is calculated to excite impure imagination or arouse prurient interest, or is unfit to be seen or heard, or which violates the proprieties of language or behavior, regardless of the motive of the printer, publisher, seller, distributor, performer or author of such act or material, such as but not limited to:

"1. Printing, showing, depicting or describing sexual acts;
"2. Printing, showing, depicting or describing children in sexual acts;
"3. Printing, showing, depicting or describing completely nude human bodies; and
"4. Printing, showing, depicting or describing the human sexual organs or the female breasts."

Let's take a closer look at that definition or description or whatchamacallit.

Any "act that is ... offensive" is obscene? Offensive to whom? Offensive in what way? Spitting in public, or picking or blowing your nose in public, may be considered offensive by a lot of people I know. Does that make it obscene? Well, maybe--but certainly not in the way that Ordinance 7780 understands the word, and it certainly would not merit, for the offensive offender, "imprisonment of one year or fine of five thousand pesos, or both."

Any "material or act that is ... contrary to ... religious beliefs, principles or doctrines" is obscene? Wait a minute. How did religion get into a secular ordinance? Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? If a modern-day Martin Luther publishes a modern-day 95 Theses contrary to specific religious beliefs, principles, or doctrines, would he be guilty of an obscene act, or would his work be proscribed as obscene material?

Something that "tends to corrupt or deprive the human mind" is obscene? That's right--DEPRIVE! That's the word used in my scanned jpeg copy of Ordinance No. 7780. The lack of a liberal-arts education is likely to "deprive the human mind" of a vast area of knowledge. Does such a lack constitute an obscenity? Well, again, in a way, maybe, as can be gleaned from the workings of the comstockian mind--but again, not in the way intended by 7780. Of course, the word "deprive" may well be a typographical error, and the honorable councilors who enacted the ordinance may have meant "deprave." But that means they allowed this ordinance to get through without doing some careful proofreading. I am assuming, of course, that those honorable councilors are aware of the distinction between "deprive" and "deprave." But I may be assuming too much.

Something that is "unfit to be seen or heard" is obscene? What exactly is unfit to be seen or heard? Who decides what is fit and what is unfit to be seen or heard? In the eyes and ears of pastors and preachers, are the Sexbomb Girls fit to be seen or heard? And in the eyes and ears of Sexbomb fans, are televangelizing pastors and preachers fit to be seen or heard?

Something that "violates the proprieties of language" is obscene? Oh, wow. That means a good deal of 20th- and 21st-century literature, film, and music can no longer be sold, screened, or played in Manila. There is, for instance, an award-winning children's book with the title "Og Uhog," by Christine Bellen, and there's a new CD by the Radioactive Sago Project with the title "Tanginamo Andaming Nagugutom sa Mundo Fashionista Ka Pa Rin." Do those titles violate "the proprieties of language" by using words that would be frowned upon in polite society--not to mention in all of Manila?

I will also have to say, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa." I must strongly advise my publishers to immediately pull out my own poetry collections from Manila bookstores, before the comstockians discover the poems where I recklessly tried to democratize the language of poetry by using kanto-boy vulgarisms. I plead guilty to writing and publishing poems such as "Santong Paspasan," about the son of a congressman and his four gangmates who rape a young woman named Maritess," a poem marked by improprieties of language, including the lines "at sinunog ang bulbol / ni Maritess" and "at nagsalsal ang mga pulis."

Note, too, that "the motive of the printer, publisher, seller, distributor, performer or author" of any act or material that Ordinance 7780 deems obscene does not matter. That means we can no longer use "for art's sake" as an excuse. That goes not only for TF, the so-called titillating films, but also for modern classics such as "Schindler's List," which the Vatican cited as one of the ten best films of all time, but which, if you will recall, Philippine film censors tried to cut and nearly banned, because it had a short "pumping scene."

What may well be one of the most alarming features of Ordinance 7780 is that its definition of "obscene" includes "printing, showing, depicting or describing"--yes, including describing--a variety of images, including "completely nude human bodies" and "the human sexual organs or the female breasts."

Such a provision makes it illegal in Manila to sell books or postcards with reproductions of Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" and Michelangelo's "David," not to mention details from the fresco on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, including that famous one showing God touching the finger of a very muscular Adam with a teenie-weenie wienie (I hesitate to use a term that violates "the proprieties of language").

Since plain and simple description of the female breasts has also been made illegal, the Bible will also have to be banned from Manila bookstores and churches, since it has these lines from the Song of Songs: "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among lilies.... This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.... thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine."

And I wonder what Ordinance 7780 would have to say about the story of Lot. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when there were no more men around to help them populate their portion of the earth, his two daughters came to an agreement. As the elder daughter said to the younger: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.” So the two daughters got their father drunk, had sex with him, and got themselves pregnant.

The “proprieties of language” may have been observed in the telling of this story, but the story itself--a tale of incest instigated by the children, however noble or practical their motives may have been--would seem to fall under Ordinance 7780’s definition of obscene as “any material or act that is indecent, erotic, lewd or offensive, or contrary to morals, good customs or religious beliefs, principles or doctrines.” The story is told in Chapter 18, Verses 31-38, of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible should really be banned from the whole of the city of Manila, on the strength of Manila Ordinance 7780.

But if Manila Ordinance 7780 is alarming, the pastors' complaint affidavit is even more so. The ordinance only proscribes the depiction of "completely nude human bodies," but the complaint affidavit objects to "nude or semi nude bodies."

A number of the attachments to the complaint affidavit show sexy women in itsy-bitsy teenie-weenie bikinis, so I guess the complainants are referring to partially uncovered female human bodies. But the wording of their complaint gave me the initial impression that they also object to "nude or semi nude bodies" of the non-human variety, such as those you see on the Animal Planet channel.

Seriously speaking, however, how can the pastors complain about "semi nude bodies"--and the attachments to their complaint affidavit include photos of women in sexy poses revealing a lot of cleavage, but with bikinis to cover the strategic anatomical parts that might arouse prurient interest in pimply adolescents--when Ordinance 7780 itself, antediluvian as it already is, only refers to "completely nude human bodies" in its definition of what is obscene or pornographic?

I will grant that some of the attachments to the complaint affidavit--in particular, the reproductions from the tabloids--belong to the category that movie censors might label For Adults Only, or X, or even Triple X. Unfortunately, neither the complaint affidavit nor Manila Ordinance 7780 makes distinctions. Material that movie censors might just rate as For Parental Guidance is lumped willy-nilly with material that even the liberal-minded might concede as requiring plain brown wrappers if they are to be sold in public places, to keep them out of reach of children and pimply adolescents.

On more than one occasion, I have fulminated against the Victorian-era provisions of the Marcosian Presidential Decree 1986, which created the current Movie and Television Review and Classification Board. But PD 1986 now seems positively progressive compared with the super-ultra-uber-mega-conservative and pre-jurassic Manila Ordinance 7780, not to mention its equally revolting clone, House Bill 3305.

Here’s a copy of the text of Manila Ordinance No. 7780. You be the judge.

ORDINANCE NO. 7780

AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING AND PENALIZING THE PRINTING, PUBLICATION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF OBSCENE AND PORNOGRAPHIC ACTS AND MATERIALS AND THE PRODUCTION, RENTAL, PUBLIC SHOWING AND VIEWING OF INDECENT AND IMMORAL MOVIES, TELEVISION SHOWS, MUSIC RECORDS, VIDEO AND VHS TAPES, LASER DISCS, THEATRICAL OR STAGE AND OTHER LIVE PERFORMANCES, EXCEPT THOSE REVIEWED BY THE MOVIE, TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB).

Be it ordained by the City Council of Manila, THAT:

SECTION 1. Title: This ordinance shall be known as the ANTI-OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY ordinance of the City of Manila.

SEC. 2. Definition of Terms: As used in this ordinance, the terms:

A. Obscene shall refer to any material or act that is indecent, erotic, lewd or offensive, or contrary to morals, good customs or religious beliefs, principles or doctrines, or to any material or act that tends to corrupt or deprive the human mind, or is calculated to excite impure imagination or arouse prurient interest, or is unfit to be seen or heard, or which violates the proprieties of language or behavior, regardless of the motive of the printer, publisher, seller, distributor, performer or author of such act or material, such as but not limited to:

1. Printing, showing, depicting or describing sexual acts;
2. Printing, showing, depicting or describing children in sexual acts;
3. Printing, showing, depicting or describing completely nude human bodies; and
4. Printing, showing, depicting or describing the human sexual organs or the female breasts.

B. Pornographic or pornography shall refer to such objects or subjects of photography, movies, music records, video and VHS tapes, laser discs, billboards, television, magazines, newspapers, tabloids, comics and live shows calculated to excite or stimulate sexual drive or impure imagination, regardless of motive of the author thereof, such as, but not limited to the following:

1. Performing live sexual acts in whatever form;
2. Those other than live performances showing, depicting or describing sexual acts;
3. Those showing, depicting or describing children in sex acts;
4, Those showing, depicting or describing completely nude human body, or showing, depicting or describing the human sexual organs or the female breasts.

C. Materials shall refer to magazines, newspapers, tabloids, comics, writings, photographs, drawings, paintings, billboards, decals, movies, music records, video and VHS tapes, laser discs, and similar matters.

SEC. 3. Prohibited Acts The printing, publishing, distribution, circulation, sale and exhibition of obscene and pornographic acts and materials and the production, public showing and viewing of video and VHS tapes, laser discs, theatrical or stage and other live performances and private showing for public consumption, whether for free or for a fee, of pornographic pictures as herein defined are hereby prohibited within the City of Manila and accordingly penalized as provided herein.

SEC. 4. Penalty Clause: Any person violating this ordinance shall be punished as follows:

1. For the printing, publishing, distribution or circulation of obscene or pornographic materials; the production or showing of obscene movies, television shows, stage and other live performances; for producing or renting obscene video and VHS tapes, laser discs, for viewing obscene movies, television shows, video and VHS tapes, and laser discs or stage and other live performances; and for performing obscene act on stage and other live performances - imprisonment of one (1) year or fine of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos, or both, at the discretion of the court.

2. For the selling of obscene or pornographic materials - imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more than one (1) year or a fine of not less than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos, nor more than three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos.

Provided, that in case the offender is a juridical person, the President and the members of the board of directors, shall be held criminally liable; Provided, further, that in case of conviction, all pertinent permits and licenses issued by the City Government to the offender shall automatically be revoked and the obscene or pornographic materials shall be confiscated in favor of the City Government for destruction; Provided, furthermore, that in case the offender is a minor and unemancipated and unable to pay the fine, his parents or guardian shall be liable to pay such fine; Provided finally, that this ordinance shall not apply to materials printed, distributed, exhibited, sold, filmed, rented, viewed or produced by reason of or in connection with or in furtherance of science and scientific research and medical or medically related art, profession, and for educational purposes.

SEC. 5. Repealing Clause: All ordinances, rules and regulations or parts thereof in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 6. Separability Clause: If any provision of this ordinance is declared void, the provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 7. Effectivity: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila.

Enacted by the City Council of Manila at its regular session today, January 28, 1993.

Approved by His Honor, the Mayor on February 19, 1993.

APPROVED:

[ SIGNED ] [ SIGNED ]
ALFREDO S. LIM JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR.
Mayor Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer
City of Manila City Council, Manila

ATTESTED:

[ SIGNED ] [ SIGNED ]
RAFAELITO M. GARAYBLAS EMMANUEL R. SISON
Secretary to the Mayor Secretary to the City Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
Principal Author: Hon. Bienvenido M. Abante, Jr.

Joint Authors: Hon. Bernardito C. Ang, Hon. Leonardo L. Angat, Hon. Humberto B. Basco, Hon. Karlo Q. Butiong, Hon. Ma. Corazon R. Caballes, Hon. Avelino S. Cailian, Hon. Flaviano F. Concepcion, Jr., Hon. Jocelyn B. Dawis, Hon. Felixberto D. Espiritu, Hon. Chika G. Go, Hon. Gonzalo P. Gonzales, Hon. Ma. Paz E. Herrera, Hon. Joey D. Hizon, Hon. Ma. Lourdes M. Isip, Hon. Pedro S. de Jesus, Hon. Jhosep Y. Lopez, Hon. Honorio U. Lopez II, Hon. Ernesto V.P. Maceda, Jr., Hon. Romualdo S. Maranan, Hon. Victoriano A. Melendez, Hon. Rolando P. Nieto, Hon. Ernesto A. Nieva, Hon. Roberto C. Ocampo, Hon. Rogelio B. dela Paz, Hon. Nestor C. Ponce, Jr., Hon. Estrella S. Querubin, Hon. Manuel M. Zarcal, Hon. Manuel L. Quin, Hon. Bernardo D. Ragasa, Hon. Alexander S. Ricafort, Hon. Ernesto F. Rivera, Hon. Romeo G. Rivera, Hon. Danilo V. Roleda, Hon. Casimiro C. Sison, Hon. Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr., Hon. Francisco G. Varona, Jr., including the Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer, Hon. JOSE L. ATlENZA, JR.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
FSB/tav:

Ka Pete

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Free expression, censorship & Manila Ordinance 7780

Monday, August 11, 2008

Salin: HUNYO ni Shi Tao

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Salin at halaw: Jose Garcia Villa

Blog Archive

About Me

Links

Followers

Total Pageviews