SC stops showing of video vs Islam

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) granted yesterday the bid of an Islamic group to stop the showing of the controversial film “Innocence of Muslims,” a source confirmed.

In full-court session, the SC agreed to grant the immediate relief sought in the petition filed by members of the Bangsamoro Nation last Monday. The SC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) from releasing the film or allowing its promotion.

A member of the court confirmed this to The STAR despite the refusal of the office of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and the SC public information office to issue confirmation.

The MTRCB will enforce the TRO against the public viewing of the controversial “Innocence of Muslims.”

“We are awaiting a copy of the Supreme Court order, the MTRCB will exercise its power to ban public showing of the movie,” said MTRCB chairman Grace Poe-Llamanzares.

She clarified that it was already the official stand of the agency that that controversial film will not be screened in any theater in the country.

The MTRCB chair said that the film would immediately be given an “X” rating (not suitable for public viewing), citing an MTRCB provision “that prohibits exhibition of any material or a dangerous tendency towards violence.”

She said the board would not allow certain parts of the film to be aired on television.

Llamanzares also said although the MTRCB has no power over the Internet they can coordinate with PLDT and other carriers to ban access to the website showing the film.

“Should an actual national security threat arise, Internet carrier may block the signal,” Llamanzares said.

The actual SC order, however, was not yet released since it was still being circulated for signatures of justices as of yesterday afternoon.

The source explained, however, that the TRO is only directed at MTRCB.

Although petitioners named Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. and Commission on Information and Communication Technology chief Ivan John Uy as respondents, they were not covered by the order.

This means the order does not cover Internet websites like YouTube, Google and others, where the film and its trailer have been circulating.

The source explained that the SC was confronted with the issue on jurisdiction over these websites, which were not impleaded as respondents in the petition.

Petitioners invoked their constitutional right to free exercise of religion and sought issuance of a TRO to prevent the showing of the film that had triggered violent protests in Muslim nations.

“Muslims cannot allow this kind of insult to their prophet Mohammad and to the Islamic religion in general. Unless the state prohibits the showing of the subject film inimical to the national security, actual or imminent danger of violence shall be expected,” warned Agakhan ‘Benladin’ Sharief, Datu Drieza Lininding, Datu Haj Ansaru Alonto, and Datu Nasser Dimapinto in their 15-page petition filed through lawyer Romeo Esmero.

They said the film is an “invasion of constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and to practice religion without fear or hatred.”

Petitioners argued that the government has the responsibility to ban the showing or any promotion of the “anti-Islamic film” that depicted the prophet as “a womanizer, homosexual and child abuser” and whose life was that of a “fool, philanderer and religious fake.”

They also took offense when the film branded Mohammad as “a donkey, the first Muslim animal.”

“The film is offensive to the petitioner’s Islamic religion and there is a real clear and present danger that it would incite hatred and extreme violence to the prevailing and relative peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians in the country,” they warned.

It was learned that Imam Jamil ‘Motawa’ Yahya, a Filipino Muslim leader chair of Bangsamoro Supreme Council of Ulammah, issued last Sept. 21 a fatwa (decree) ordering punishment by death of the people behind the film.

Meanwhile, Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) party-list Rep. Sherwin Tugna supported calls for the government to ban the showing of the “Innocence of Muslims.”

He said the Constitution provides the prohibition of prior restraint on core speech, or the speech which communicates political, social and religious ideas, as it guards the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

However in the case of New York Times v. United States 403 US 697,he said, the prohibition of prior restraint can be disregarded when security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government.

“Assuming that the video is considered a core speech, given the historical animosity between Christians and Muslims, the said video could have been restrained without any violation of the freedom of speech since it incites violence anchored on the centuries-old enmity between some Christian and Muslim quarters around the world. As much as the video could have been validly and legally restrained, it can also be subsequently prohibited,” Tugna said. – With Paolo Romero