MVRS Publications

v.
Islamic Dawah Council of the Phils
[G.R. No. 135306. January 28, 2003] ]
Case Report
Parties Involved
Petitioner MVRS Publication, MARS C.
LACONSAY, MYLA C. AGUJA and AGUSTINO
G. BINEGAS, JR.
vs.
Respondents - ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF
THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ABDUL-RAHMAN
R.T. LINZAG, IBRAHIM F.P. ARCILLA, ABDUL
RASHID DE GUZMAN, AL-FARED DA SILVA
and IBRAHIM B.A. JUNIO, respondents.
Key Facts of the Case
An article was published in
Bulgar, a tabloid, about how
Muslims do not eat pigs and
other animals and treat such
animals as gods.
The August 1, 1992 edition of
Bulgar had an article that reads:

"ALAM BA NINYO?
Na ang mga baboy at kahit anong uri ng hayop sa
Mindanao ay hindi kinakain ng mga Muslim?
Para sa kanila ang mga ito ay isang sagradong
bagay. Hindi nila ito kailangang kainin kahit na
sila pa ay magutom at mawalan ng ulam sa
tuwing sila ay kakain. Ginagawa nila itong Diyos
at sinasamba pa nila ito sa tuwing araw ng
kanilang pangingilin lalung-lalo na sa araw na
tinatawag nilang Ramadan."


The Islamic Council filed with RTC-Manila a complaint for
damages against MRVS et al saying the article alluded to the pig
as the god of the Muslims.
The complaint alleges that the libelous statement was insulting.
They also say it was published with the intent to hurt their
feelings and disparage the Muslims and Islam in this country.
MVRS et al says that the article did not mention anyone to be the
object of the article and so the complainants (the Muslims) are
not entitled to damages
They also say that the article was an expression of belief or
opinion
Says it was published without malice
RTC dismissed the complaint.
CA reversed.

Ruling:
Defamation
Defamation, which includes slander and libel,
means the offense of injuring a persons
character, fame, or reputation through false and
malicious statements.
o It is that which tends to injure reputation or
diminish esteem, respect, or confidence in the
person claiming to have been defamed.
o Defamation is an invasion of a relational
interest since it involves the opinion which others
in the community may have or tend to have of
the person claiming to have been defamed.
Declarations made about a large group of
people cannot be interpreted to advert to an
identified or identifiable individual.

Absent circumstances specifically pointing or
alluding to a particular member of a class, no
member of such class has a right of action
without impairing the equally demandable right
of free speech, expression, and of the press.
Jurisprudence Cited
In Newsweek v. IAC, SC said: Where the
defamation is alleged to have been directed at a
group or class, it is essential that the statement
must be so sweeping or all-embracing as to
apply to every individual in that group, or
sufficiently specific so that each individual in the
class or group can prove that the defamatory
statement specifically pointed to him, so that he
can bring the action separately, if need be.
As to injury
There is no injury to the reputation of the
individual Muslims who constitute the
class that can give rise to an action for
group libel.

Muslim community is too vast
In this case, the Muslim community is too
vast as to readily ascertain who among the
Muslims were particularly defamed.
Muslim is a name which describes only a
general segment of the Philippine
population, comprising of heterogenous
body whose construction is not so well
defined as to render it impossible for any
representative identification
Contrary view
This contrary view invokes:
Chaplinksy case: words intended to merely incite
hostility have no social value and do not enjoy
constitutional protection
Beauharnais case: hate speech which
denigrates a group of persons identified by their
religion, race, or ethnic origin, defames that
group and the law may validly prohibit such
s[eech on the same ground as the defamation of
an individual.
View of the Supreme Court
SC held that the action was personal in
nature. It has no application because no
particular individual was identified.
Conclusion of the Supreme Court

Court has no power to determine which is proper
religious conduct or belief.

Courts must be viewpoint neutral when it comes to
religious matters if only to affirm the neautrality principle
of free speech rights under modern jurisprudence where
all ideas are treated equal in the eyes of the first
amendment even those universaly condemned and run
counter to constitutional principles.

Under the right of free speech, there is no such thing as
a false idea.