Sotto, MTRCB should not impose religious beliefs on general public
I refer to your news report, “‘Dear Satan’ offends me as a Christian, says MTRCB chief Lala Sotto,” (Inquirer.net, 9/3/24), concerning a controversial movie and the alleged offense felt by the head of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).
I will argue that her use of religious beliefs in giving “an X-rating or was not approved for public viewing by the [MTRCB]” by virtue of her being a Christian is illegal and unconstitutional.
This is illegal precisely because nowhere in the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1986, the law that created the said agency, does it deserve that rating.
Article continues after this advertisementIn Section 3, the board is authorized to delete scenes and disapprove film prints under specific conditions: if they are considered immoral, indecent, contrary to law and good customs, damaging to the prestige of the Republic and its people or its duly constituted authority, or those that have a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of a crime or violence.
Further, the decision of Lala Sotto as MTRCB chair is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional provision on the freedom of expression and the aesthetic freedom of our artists and intellectuals.
Sotto cannot use her being a Christian to deny those who are different or not the same as her. As a public official, she cannot invoke her religious beliefs in depriving others who do not subscribe to her views and opinions.
Article continues after this advertisementIt is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that the freedom to believe includes the freedom not to believe. That freedom to have a religion includes the freedom not to have a religion and the freedom against or from it.
She and the MTRCB board have no right to impose their ecclesiastical and religious beliefs on matters of statecraft. We all know that the separation of the state and the church shall be inviolable as clearly mandated by fundamental law.
“Shimenet” like the title of the film, “Dear Satan,” but she and her cohorts have no right to deny it solely on their religious feelings. Their feelings should have nothing to do with their performance of their task as public servants.
In the immortal words of George Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Why it is that we allow rubbish and utterly tasteless movies like “Maid in Malacañang” and deny “Dear Satan”? Are they implying that our people are so stupid and ignorant that they will fail to discern that the movie title is not the movie itself? Are they so concerned and afraid that our citizens will not succeed in deciphering the value and message of the film beyond its title? Do we live in an age where smart people are silenced so that stupid people won’t be offended?
This is a feudal mindset and incontestably antithetical to the vision of modernity and cosmopolitanism.
Jose Mario Dolor De Vega,
Asian Center,
University of the Philippines Diliman
