Aside from the issue of legitimacy, another issue that confronted the Arroyo administration was the issue of Live Show. F.P. Demeterio describes it as the "first cultural and artistic conflict" after EDSA Dos. The movie, Live Show, for Demeterio, is a

"collection of a number of life-narratives of nobodies struggling to make sense out of their senseless existence in the seedy side and rotting slums of Manila, bound together by the life-narrative of its male lead character who is equally a nobody engaged in the same Sisyphian struggle. Through poverty and societal inequalities these people, who are not necessarily evil-hearted and immoral, were driven to the margins of flesh trade. Along the dark sidewalks of Manila, in nondescript and crumbling makeshift establishments, and in cheap and dingy hotel rooms, these individuals were forced to hawk their bodies, and consequently their dignities and hopes."

The banning of the movie from public viewing was criticized a lot by members of the movie industry. Actors, actresses, directors, and producers went to the streets once again and protested the banning of the said movie. In their protest actions, they claimed that the movie is not a pornography, rather an art. Some said that the government violated their freedom of expression. And other accused the religious sector, particularly Cardinal Sin, of violating the principle of separation of the Church and State because of their influence on the president's decision to ban the said movie.

This situation is nothing new in the Philippines. Conflict among the movie industry, the religious sector and the government over censorship already became a part of the political scene in this country. This conflict exists since the time a board on censorship was created by the government.

Movie and film censorship exists for almost twenty years in the Philippines. On November 27, 1929, Act No. 3582 was approved under which the Board of Censorship for Moving Pictures, the first movie and film regulatory body in the country, was created. On 1938, during the Commonwealth period, Commonwealth Act No. 305 was signed creating the Board of Review for Moving Pictures. Decades after the Japanese occupation, the Republic Act. No. 3060 was signed on 1961 creating the Board of Censor for Motion Pictures. During the Marcos regime, the board's name was changed to the Board of Review for Motion Pictures. On August 1985, Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1986 was signed, giving birth to the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). The MTRCB has four major areas of operation, namely:

• General Administration and Support Services which is responsible in the general management and supervision and the administration of personnel;

• Film archival and library services whose main responsibility is the research, cataloging and documentation, storing and conservation of films which includes library services for film researchers, enthusiasts and students;

• Regulation of theatrical and television films which include the screening, examination, classification and supervision of the exhibition of motion pictures for non-theatrical, theatrical and television distribution;

• Inspection of theaters which includes the prosecution of violators of P.D. 1986 (MTRCB Manual).

The MTRCB is administered by a Board composed of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and thirty (30) members. They are appointed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines from multi-sectoral combination of expertise in the various areas of motion picture and television. The Board should be composed of at least five (5) members from the Philippine Bar and at least fifteen (15) members from the movie and television industry nominated by legitimate associations in the various sectors of the industry. The members of the Board should meet the following qualifications: he/she must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, not less than twenty-one (21) years of age, and of good moral character and standing in the community.

The MTRCB was created to achieve the goals of (1) safeguarding the morality of the society, particularly that of the young Filipino people, against the negative influence of certain motion pictures; and (2) promoting the conditions conducive to the development of the movie and television industry to make it viable source of the country's economy (MTRCB Manual). To achieve these goals, the MTRCB addresses these objectives:

• To maintain the standard form film review and to protect the viewing public, especially minors, from unsuitable film contents;

• To ensure that all films for public exhibition are consistent with and relevant to current Filipino morals, culture and tradition as standards;

• To monitor all importation and exportation of films for theatrical and non-theatrical exhibition, television materials, film and TV advertising materials, religious materials and/or materials for professional growth;

• To screen all advertising materials related to film/motion pictures like posters, photo stills, including still frames, newspaper layouts, and billboards; to coordinate with the various government/private agencies entities connected with the motion picture industry;

• To establish local regulatory councils all over the archipelago in order to strengthen the Board's regulatory functions;

• To initiate and implement plans and policies that will help raise the artistic and technical standards of the movie and television industry through tax rebates and/or other incentive programs;

• To assist the Office of the President in the matter of promoting and aiding the interest of the movie and television industry in relation to the economic development of the country particularly, for those media to provide wholesome educational, informational and entertainment fare, in a manner that assures adequate public convenience and enjoyment (MTRCB Manual).

The MTRCB was mandated by the law under the P.D. 1986 eleven powers and functions where they based their rules and regulations. The following are the eleven powers and functions of the MTRCB:

• To promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary or proper for the implementation of this act, and the accomplishment of its purposes and objectives, including guidelines and standards for production, advertising and titles;

• To screen, review and examine all motion pictures, television programs; including publicity materials such as advertisements, trailers and stills, both for theatrical and non-theatrical distribution, for television broadcast or for viewing, imported or produced in the Philippines, whether for local or export;

• To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials which in the judgment of the Board based on contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable such as: a) those which tend to incite subversion, insurrection, rebellion or sedition against the State, or otherwise threaten the economic and/or political stability of the State; b) those which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or duly constituted authorities; c) those which glorify criminals or condone crimes; d) those which serve no other purpose but satisfy the market for violence or pornography; e) those which tend to abet the traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; f) those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; and g) those which may constitute contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain to matters which are subjudice in nature.

• To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel permits for the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease exhibition, and/or television programs and publicity materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials are determined by the Board to be objectionable shall be imported, exported, produced, copied, reproduced, distributed, sold, leased, exhibit and/or broadcast by television;

• To classify motion pictures, television programs and similar shows into categories such as "G" or "For General Patronage" (all ages admitted) "P" for Parental Guidance Suggested, or "R" or "Restricted" (for adults only) "X" or "Nor for Public Viewing," or such other categories as the Board may determine for the public interest;

• To close the moviehouses and other similar establishments engaged in the public exhibition of motion pictures and television programs which violate the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board;

• To levy, assess and collect, and periodically adjust and revise the rates of fees and charges for the work of review and examination and for the issuance of the licenses and permits which the Board is authorized to grant in the exercise of its power and functions and in the performance of its duties and responsibilities;

• To deputize representatives from the government and from the various associations in the movie industry, whose main duties shall be to help ensure compliance with all laws relative to the importation, exportation, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of motion pictures, television programs, advertisements and publicity materials.

  For this purpose, the Board may constitute such Regulatory Council or Councils composed of representatives from the government and the movie and television industry as may be appropriate to implement the purposes and objectives of this Act. The Board may also call on any law enforcement of its decisions, orders or awards;

• To cause the prosecution on behalf of the People of the Philippines, of violators of this Act, or anti-trust, obscenity, censorship and other laws pertinent to the movie and television industry;

• To prescribe the internal and operational procedures for the exercise of its powers and functions as well as the performance of its duties and responsibilities, including the creation and vesting of authority upon sub-committee of the Board for the work or review and other related matters; and

• To exercise such other powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Act, and to perform such other related duties and responsibilities as may be directed by the President of the Philippines (MTRCB Rules and Regulations, 1998: 4-7).

In short, the MTRCB was created to safeguard morality and protect the youth from moral corruption and values degradation through movie regulation, i.e., the screening, reviewing and examination of motion pictures; approving or disapproving, deleting objectionable portions from and prohibit the exhibition of the movie; supervising, regulating, granting, denying or canceling of permits; classification of motion pictures; and prosecution of the violators of P.D. 1986. It was also created to enhance the movie industry as an economic tool through tax rebates and other incentives program.

A. Past Policies of the MTRCB

The Morato Board

The MTRCB rulings that will be discussed in this portion are limited only from the time of Chairperson Manuel Morato, after the EDSA Revolution, to the board headed by Jesus Sison. In this discussion, the analyst will point out the changes in the MTRCB policies. The analyst observed that the Chairpersons and the members of the board have a great influence on the policies of the board. Their personal values and views have a great weight on the formulation of the MTRCB's rules and regulations.

During the time of Chairperson Manuel Morato (1986-1992), "the board was plunged into the most controversial years of its existence" (Tejero, 1990: 17). The board under Morato sees itself as the protector of the morality of the Filipino people, especially the youth. For Morato, the board exists for the viewers, particularly for the children and the youth, not for the movie producers, directors, and artists (Tejero, 1990: 15). He said that the youth constitutes fifty percent of the population (Tejero, 1990: 15). For Morato, the board should protect the young Filipino people from the excesses and abuses of mass media (Tejero, 1990: 15). He said, "...radio and TV are using the airways which belong to the patrimony of the State, and as such are owned by the people who have the right to be protected from the excesses and abuses of the broadcast media" (Tejero, 1990:15).

The Morato board did not only classify, but censor by deleting violent and sexually oriented scenes in the movies. The board was also famous for banning movies, such as "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Dear Uncle Sam," and "Orapronobis" (the last two are local movies) for public viewing. And disapproving a documentary on the life of Gringo Honasan by the "The Inside Story," a public affairs program by the News and Current Affairs of ABS-CBN.

The Morato board banned the "The Last Temptation of Christ" because it is anti-religion. It is detrimental to the Catholic faith and teaching, which constitutes eighty percent of the Philippine population. Morato said in an interview, "it can be approved with an X rating, but then no theater shows X-rated movies in the country. It is obscene, its blasphemous, it's really insulting" (Tejero, 1990: 17).

The movie "Dear Uncle Sam" was disapproved for its "overwhelmingly" anti-bases, if not anti-American" stance, which the board said would have disturbed the ongoing US-bases negotiations. The chairperson said that he might be accused of being insensitive, if he approve the public viewing of the movie, because of the ongoing US-bases negotiation (Tejero, 1990:17).

"Orapronobis" was approved by the board with deletions or cuts. But it was not exhibited. According to the Chairperson himself, "the theater owners association refuses to handle it for showing in the commercial circuit because of its indictment of the government, the military, and the Church. They are afraid that their theaters will be bombed by rightists" (Tejero, 1990: 17). "Orapronobis" depicts the political and social situation at the countryside during the time of Pres. Corazon Aquino.

The board rejected the documentary about the life of Gringo Honasan, the leader of three coup d' etats during the time of Pres. Aquino, because, the board said, it violated "the norms and standards of documentary films that both sides of any question must be equally presented and should not be biased" (Tejero, 1990: 17). The producer of the documentary film sent the case to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court decided against the MTRCB decision.

During the time of Morato, bold films, known as pene movies, were driven underground. And later, it was replaceed by ST (sex-trip) movies, a new version of bold movies.

The Morato board was ultra-conservative. It focused a lot on safeguarding the morality of the Philippine society and on preserving Aquino Adminitration, and protecting its interests, which was quite unstable because of coup attempts.

The Mendez Board

Henrietta Mendez became the chairperson of the board during the first two years of the Ramos Administration (1992-1994). The Mendez Board continued the policy of her predecessor, Manuel Morato. The Mendez board "intensified the MTRCB's anti-pornography campaign to maintain the moral balance" of the Philippine society (Mella, 1993: 31). The Mendez board also shifted its attention on the countryside where the violations of the anti-smut law are rampant (Mella, 1993: 31).

The Mendez board, like that of the Morato board, defines itself as a guardian of morality. They believe that the board is a morality board. According to Edward Buenaflor, the vice-chairperson of the board, the PD 1986 makes the MTRCB a morality board. He said, "whether we on the board like it or not ... this provision makes us a morality board ... I know that defining 'contemporary Filipino values' is pointless. Morality is subjective. Obscenity is subjective. Artistry is subjective. But the law states that someone has to do the job..." (Torre, 1994: 25). Buenaflor further said that they are only following the law (Torre, 1994: 35). He said, "if I find that a movie deserves an X rating, I will rate it accordingly. Of course, my decision is debatable. But basically, I'm following the spirit of the law" (Torre, 1994:35).

Like the Morato board, the Mendez board classified, censored or "cut" films, and even disapproved certain movies for public viewing. But the movies that were disapproved by the board for public viewing were granted permission by the Appeals Committee, which is under the Office of the President.

The movies, such as "Boomerang," "Dracula," "Groundhog Day," were censored by the board. Scenes, which contain violent words and sexual acts, were deleted from the movie. The board also disapproved "Crazy Banana" and the controversial "Schindler's List", which later on was reversed by the Appeals Committee. The former was recommended for PG-15 while the latter was rated R-18 without cuts. Not only these, the movies "The Piano," Madison County," "Belle Epoque," and "Antonia's Line" were disapproved by the board but later on reversed by the Appeals Committee with a rating of R-18. All movies are sexually oriented.

During the time of Chairperson Mendez, the MTRCB continued its obligation of safeguarding the morality of the society, and protecting the youth from moral corruption. But the Appeals Committee reversed some of the policy decisions made by the board on selected movies. The policy actions of the Appeals Committee gave hope to the producers of the "porno" or bold movies. These gave them the "go signal" to do more bold movies as long as it has social relevance.

The Sison Board

Jesus Sison (1995-1998) reiterated the role of the MTRCB. He said that their "job is to screen, review, examine and classify all motion pictures, television pictures, television programs and even publicity materials as advertisements, trailer and still photos" (Lazaro,1996: 18). He said that the board does not simply censor, but reviews and classifies (Lazaro, 1996: 18). Sison's controversial policy was his policy against "the violence-prone cartoon superheroes on television whom he found unfit for Filipino children to idolize" (Lazaro, 1996: 18). The Sison board also required "all trailers for exhibition in moviehouses and television to be reviewed and passed upon by the MTRCB" (Lazaro, 1996: 18).

During the time of Sison, the MTRCB "required all television programs between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. be rated GP (General Patronage) and suited for all ages: 'on the presumption that parents are at work during these hours' and PG (Parental Guidance) from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. 'when parents would be home from work' " (Lazaro, 1996: 18). The MTRCB strictly prohibits the showing of rated R-18 on television (Lazaro, 1996: 18-19).

Sison said that his board has three main objectives. These are: firstly, "to encourage the production of more films that depict the innate heroism of the Filipino;" secondly, "to search for ways to install a self regulatory framework for the film industry, where the MTRCB and industry leaders will call upon their colleagues to exercise responsibility in movie making...;" and lastly, "to confer a 'developmental dimension' to the work of the MTRCB so that it will go beyond wielding the censor's scissors and do the spadework image in the public eye..." (Lazaro, 1996: 19).

The Sison board was against movies that "glorify criminals and condone crimes; those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence or pornography; those which tend to abet the traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and those which are libelous and defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead" (Lazaro, 1994: 19).

The Sison board rejected local movie titles as "Basa," which was changed to "Basa sa Dagat;" "Tikim," which was redubbed "Patikim ng Pinya;" "Bed Weather," which was changed to "Init sa Tag-ulan;" and "Daigdig ng mga Toro," which became "Halimuyak ng Babae" (Lazaro, 1994: 19). These movies, according to the board, are not fit for public viewing because of their carnal themes and sexual scenes.

The three boards' policy are conservative because they are very strict when it comes to the showing or viewing of movies that contain sexual scenes. They agree with one another that the board is a morality board. And they have the power, given to them the by the law, to decide what is good to the eyes of the public and what is not.

B. MTRCB and The Movie and Television Industry

In 1993, because of the very conservative policies of the MTRCB, movie producers, directors, and filmmakers appealed to then President Fidel V. Ramos that the government film and television regulatory body has been imposing "unrealistic and antiquated" censorship regulations that would result in further deterioration of local movies (Mediawatch, 1993: 39).

They accused the MTRCB of unlawful and unconstitutional acts. They said that under the law the board cannot censor or cut films. They can only classify according to various audiences (Mediawatch, 1993: 39). They also argued that censorship is unconstitutional, because it is against the freedom of expression.

They cited Sections 4 and 7 of Article III, or the Bill of Rights, of the 1987 Constitution, which says, "no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press" and " the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized" (Tejero, 1990: 17). They also cited Section 14 of Article XIV, which says that "the state shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity and diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression" (Tejero, 1990: 17)

The movie industry is proposing for the abolition of censorship in the country. Aside from legal and constitutional arguments, they also said that "censorship is highly damaging to the mind... it does not develop critical consumers" (Tejero, 1990: 15). And for them, censorship is detrimental to the development of the movie industry. The MTRCB has a mindset of 15th century, which was a period marked by the Inquisition, witchhunting, and bookburning (Mella, 1993: 31) and 19th century, because of the conservative views of the board.

The movie industry does not believe that media is the cause of social ills or rampant crimes in the society. For them, media cannot be accused of eroding the moral values of the society (Santoalla and Martinez, 1998: 54). For them, it is the responsibility of the schools and parents to preserve moral values, not the censorship board. Parents should guide their children on watching movies.

C. Freedom of the Press, what about the Common Good?: The MTRCB and the Conservative Groups

In 1992, the Daughters of Mary Immaculate (DMI), a Catholic religious congregation, wrote to then Sen. Agapito Aquino. The nuns said in the letter that they have observed "that movies promote disrespect for parents and authority, violence and vengeance... They inculcate and invent values, which go deeply into human consciousness. Movies today...are full of prurient sex scenes and excessive violence and this may bring about a generation of criminals and sex perverts..." (Congressional Highlights, 1992: 371).

In 1993, the Citizen Action Against Crime (CAAC) launched a campaign assailing the mass media industry for the unrelenting inroads of profanity, nudity, sex, violence and other perversion in the mass media (Mella, 1993: 15).

Recently, it was reported on the Philippine Star (May 7, 1999) that the MTRCB are receiving calls from parents about the violence and obscenity in the news and public affairs programs in television. Some of these news programs are telecast during primetime. Children are able to watch such programs.

The conservative sector of the society, including the parents, believes that sex and violence in the movies have a bad effect to the audience, especially to the young ones. They said that children are able to imitate violent scenes in the movies, and utter bad words, which they have heard in the movies.

This sector of the society does not want to abolish the censorship body of the country. They are in favor of the policies of the MTRCB. This sector of the society shares the same sentiments and values with the members of the board. The same with the board, they see themselves as guardian of the morality of the Philippine society.

There are many actors in the policies of the MTRCB. The policies of the MTRCB are greatly affected by the personal views and values of the chairpersons and the members of the board. The value-orientation of the board's chair and members affects the policy outcome of the board. We cannot also discount the influence of the religious groups, especially the very influential Catholic Church, on the policies of the board. On the other hand, these conservative policies affected badly the interest of the movie industry. The movie industry accused the board of too much irregularity and unreasonable ratings. Today, because of liberalization of the movie industry, the local films and movies are suffering financially. Producers and directors resort to "titillating" movies, which have low costs but generate high profit

In the illustration above (Figure 1), the movie industry, the Catholic Church and other Christian Chuches, the parents and the conservatives groups, the Appeals Committee, and the chair of the Board have a great influence on the policy decisions of the MTRCB. However, in the past policies of the MTRCB, the Christian Churches, led by the Catholic Church, and the conservatives groups have a great influence on the censorship board. And the movie industry lost its influence on the Board. But the it found an ally inside the Malaca�ang, the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee reversed some of the decisions of the Board.

Another crucial factors in the policy decisions of the board are the members interpretation of "Filipino cultural values," which, from the analyst point of view, influenced a lot by their religious belief, education and upbringing. Implicitly, the conservative Filipino culture and the religious belief of the members of the board influenced their policy decisions (see Figure 2).

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Media has a great influence on the minds of the audience, especially to the young ones who do not know yet what is good or bad, proper or improper, moral or immoral.

The so called conservative sector of the society, including the parents, are very much bothered by the influence of the action movies, including cartoon movies that tend to be violent, on their children. They also blame the increase in the number of crimes, such as drug addiction, murder, and rape, to the mass media. The analyst perceived that there is a correlation between the violent and obscene movies and crime rate.

It was reported on 1990 that a 22-year-old guy raped a seven-year-old girl. When he was arrested and interrogated, he confessed that he watched a X-rated sex movie before he raped the young girl (Tejero, 1990: 15). "Twenty years ago, an 11-year-old girl jumped from the branch of a tree and landed on a pointed bamboo pole that pierced her vagina. Upon regaining her speech, she said that she was trying to imitate the flying stunts of Darna in the movie" (Tejero, 1990: 15).

A study by the US National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence said that violence on the media "tends to result in an increase in violence in real life" (Mella, 1993:15). A study also of the American Academy of Pediatrics found that "repeated exposure to violence can make children violent and numb to the horror of real-life violence" (Mella, 1993: 15). Patricia Licuanan, a social psychologist, from Ateneo de Manila University, said that "random violence in movies is more damaging" (Tejero, 1990: 15).

Studies and experts told us that violence and obscenity in the media have an ill effect to the mind and psyche of any individual, whether young or old. These violent and obscene films and movies appear in televisions and cinemas. It is the duty of the state to protect its people against the bad influence of media, which latter on will harm the society at large.

The Problematic Situation

The MTRCB board, headed by Armida Siguion-Reyna, adopts a policy of self-regulation. This policy gives the directors, producers, and filmmakers the opportunity to censor their movies. The new policy creates a loud noise from the conservative and moralist sector of the society. They said that the new policy would create more violent and obscene movies. But the Armida board said that this policy would not tolerate and allow violent and obscene movies.

Studies and experts have said that violence and obscenity in the movies have a dangerous effect to the mind and psyche of any individual, whether young or old. It is the duty of the State to protect its people against these movies, which have an ill effect to the people and society as a whole. Thus, the analyst will explore more on this policy of self-regulation. What is this all about? What are its causes and consequences? Who tell the truth, the conservatives or the board? And would it address the issues raised above? If not, what are its possible options?

Self-regulation: A Regulatory Policy from "Inside"

Self-regulation is a regulatory policy. Unlike other regulatory policies of the government, this policy is not imposed upon the concerned individuals or groups. This policy allows the individuals and groups to regulate themselves, i.e. to make policies that will control or limit the behavior of their members. Thus, this policy comes from the "inside," which means that the members of a particular group will "police" each other, and there is no need for the government to intervene.

Self-regulation or self-censorship is an ideal policy, because this allows the filmmakers and producers "to recognize the value and the limits of their work (de Vega, 1975: 100). de Vega further says:

"...this...is the most ideal we can devise because it eliminates the arbitrariness inherent in situations in which the Board finds itself. For admittedly, the existence of a body sitting in judgment over films is not congenial to the spirit of freedom vital to this medium of expression. Often the Board has been accused of exercising powers beyond its competence, of shutting out vital ideas, of isolating society from dynamic developments abroad" (de Vega, 1975: 100-101).

What is now the function of the board of censor? Is there still a need for the existence of this body as an "overseer" of the activities of the movie industry, i.e. to see to it that the policies that they imposed upon themselves are followed. de Vega says that there "will always remain as long as there are moviemakers blinded by the lure of box-office profits" (de Vega, 1975: 101).

Self-regulation: What is it and why was it formulated?

Self-regulation is a new policy adopted by the Armida board. This policy is a revolutionary policy in the sense that it breaks the conservative policies of the three boards of Morato, Mendez, and Sison. This policy created a loud noise from the conservatives because of their fear that this policy will allow more obscene and violent movies.

Chapter IV, Section 15 of the revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the MTRCB says:

"The board shall not dictate to the applicant particular scenes, shots, or dialogue for deletion or cuts in order for applicant to avail himself of a desired classification. The applicant shall make it his responsibility to delete scenes, shots, or dialogue on his own to arrive at the classification he desires for his material, with such voluntary deletions to be noted down in the Exhibition Permit as a safeguard against illegal insertions" (MTRCB Implementing Rules and Regulations, 1998: 25).

Armida Siguion-Reyna explains that they will not exercise their "power to cut, or even to recommend cuts, of a particular scenes in a given film or television material" (Reyna, 1999: 10). She says that they are doing this in order to prepare the movie industry to self-regulation.

She further explains that the movie producers and directors have a particular set of audience in mind while they are making the movies (Reyna, 1999: 10). And her board's role now is to see to it that the movie suits the audience that it targets (Reyna, 1999: 10). When there is a discrepancy in their analysis and opinion, the board will return it to the producer and director for them to make the necessary cuts (Reyna, 1999: 10). She says that they will not recommend any scenes to be deleted, it is up to the producer and director what scenes they want to delete for their movie to suit its audience. In this policy, the producer and director are involved in the process of deliberation and review of the movie (Gulle).

What is the criteria of this policy in judging that the movie is proper for public exhibition or not? The Armida board says that there are four criteria in judging a movie: first, the context; second, the intent; third, the presentation; and fourth, the culture (of the movie). So even if the movie is sexually oriented but passed the four criteria set by the board, it will have the board's approval (with cuts or without cuts).

Reyna claims that self-regulation is the objective of the MTRCB since it was created fifteen years ago (Reyna, 1999:10). And she sees her board as a transitory body towards the realization of this objective, which was neglected by the previous boards (Reyna, 1999: 10). The previous boards, as discussed in the earlier part of this paper, adapted conservative policies. They imposed strictly the policy of censorship and classification. They delete scenes from the movie and then rate it according to its audience. Reyna denounced this policy since then, when she was still an actress and a producer.

This policy imposed a great responsibility to the producers, directors, parents, and to the viewers, as well. That is why this policy implies maturity upon the individuals concerned.

The Policy of Self Regulation and the Armida Board

The Armida board has certain characteristics that the previous three boards did not possess. That is why this board is "revolutionary." First, the Armida board has a different perspective. This board does not see itself as a "guardian of morality" rather as "a part of transition process wherein the movie industry would eventually be given the mandate to police its own rank, to maintain its own standards, and to help improve the quality of movies offered to the public (Gulle). In other words, this board is concerned with the second goal of the MTRCB, that is, to enhance or improve the movie industry as an economic tool of this country.

Second, this board is composed of persons from the movie industry. They are actors, actresses, and directors, who during the time of Morato, Mendez, and Sison marched on the streets to protest against the censorship policy and are very vocal in criticizing the board on its rulings on certain movies. Film directors Emmanuel Borlaza, Mel Chionglo, Joel Lamangan, Don Escudero, and Nick Deocampo: actresses Lorna Tolentino, Nida Blanca, Anita Linda, and Gloria Sevilla; actors Robert Arevalo, Eric Quizon and Romy Romulo; screenwriters Pete Lacaba, Raquel Villavicencio and Diego Cagahastian; critic Mario Hernando, ABS-CBN executive Maloli Manalastas, producer Tony Tuviera, and Benedicto Tarnate, a TV official are the people from the movie and television industry, which composed the Armida board. From the academe, Fr. Nick Cruz, Fr. Nico Bautista, Behn Cervantes, Sofia Macapagal, Tessie Daza, and Maria Laura Consuelo Dimanlig. And from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are lawyers Julie Dimalanta, Renato Salud, Eric Mallonga, and Adolfo Guerzon. The vice chairperson of the board is Prof. Bienvenido Lumbera. And the executive director is Dennis Marasigan.

Majority of the members of the board is an advocate of the self-regulation policy. They have one voice and opinion: they do not believe in censorship, because for them this is the time for self-regulation (Gatdula). Obviously, these members of the board reflect the sentiments or values of their colleagues in the movie industry. The conservative boards of Morato, Mendez, and Sison are blamed by the movie industry for its downfall in the 90's for their "tyrannical censorship" (Sotto, 1998: 116).

The board, as what the analyst observed, has a great influence on the policy making of the MTRCB. It was observed in the past three boards, and the present board, how influential the values and perceptions of the members of the board, especially the Chairperson, in framing its policy. The past three boards reflected sentiments of the conservatives and the moralist, while the Armida board reflects the sentiments of the "liberals" from the movie industry.

Santoalla and Martinez (1998: 52) say that the government and the church are on the side of the conservatives, while the movie industry are on the side of the liberals. But now, the government is on the side of the liberals since it is being represented by the board. And not only that, the President of the Republic is a former movie actor.

The last characteristic of this board is that this uses different criteria in judging the movie, which is very far from the provisions in the PD 1986. Instead of judging the movie from the "contemporary Filipino cultural values," the board will judge it according to its content, context, culture, and intent (of the movie). These criteria are very artistic in nature. The moral nature of these criteria is rather vague. Thus, this board goes away from the traditional policy of the MTRCB, and it takes off its role as "guardian of morality."

The members of the board come from the movie industry, which have liberal perspective on morality in movies and television. Thus, the policy of the board is also liberal, because its members have a great influence on the policy making of the board. They justify this move by saying that it is the role of the MTRCB is a transitory body from censorship towards self-regulation. They said that this is the real goal of the MTRCB: To enhance the movie industry and one way of doing this is allowing the members of the industry to regulate itself. They also believe that the persons from the movie industry are qualified to judge films as films (Arcellana, 1987: 44).

The Movie Industry and the Self Regulation Policy

Is the justification of the board acceptable? What is really their intention when they create such policy? To answer this let us examine the situation of the movie industry.

According to Sotto, the movie industry since the middle of 1990s experienced a economic collapse because of certain reasons:

"Admission prices have become too prohibitive by the standards of the mass audience. Television has improved its programming and has widened its reach due to a ratings war among stations. The once reliable formulas have become too familiar and unexciting. The star system has been reduced to a gallery of geriatrics with whom identification is difficult for younger generations.

Add to this is a most perennial problems: onerous taxation, the lack of incentives, and a tyrannical censorship board that continually exercise capriciousness in its decisions" (Sotto, 1998: 117-118).

Sotto (1998: 118) further says that despite of this situation movie producers do not abandoned the movie industry. However, he says, there are certain changes or adjustments made in order to cope with this situation, such as budgets are decreased, movie stars' salaries are cut, and shootings days are reduce into a week (Sotto, 1998: 118). Sotto (1998: 118) claims that the movie industry still produced 156 movies in 1995 and 170 in 1997.

What kind of movie is this? These movies are "titillating" movies, which made the past boards controversial. The 90s is flooded by this kind of movies, because these movies have a four million difference in gross as compared to non-"titillating" movies (Gulle).

For de Vega (1975: 99-100), bold movies, or "titillating" movies, are rampant nowadays because "filmmaking is no longer regarded as a moral venture." The "aesthetic values" involved in the movies are given greater emphasis and consideration. Hence, the MTRCB must change its policy. Its policy must adapt to the changes in the "aesthetic values" of filmmaking otherwise "it becomes a tool so detached from its basic purpose, and so useless for the realities of its environment, and its proper place would be in museum" (de Vega, 1975: 100).

The two authors, de Vega and Sotto, speaking from the point of view of an artist, give us two bases for answering the questions raised above. Maybe, or maybe not, these are at the back of the minds of the members of the Armida board when they formulated their "revolutionary" policy.

The Conservatives and the Policy of Self-regulation

The conservatives and the moralists are worried of this new policy. They are afraid that "titillating" movies will "flood" the movie houses. They said that if there were obscene movies during the times of the conservative boards, much worse that it could be now (Gulle).

The conservatives, of course, do not care about the economic situation of the movie industry and the changes that occurred on the concept of films and movies and the taste of the viewing public. They care about the effect of these obscene and violent movies to the young ones. They care about the kind of television programs that the children and the family will watch in their home.

Motion pictures "tickles" the mind and imagination of the audience. This may have a negative effect to the audience, especially the young ones who do not know yet what is real and reel. They might imitate this, and the worst thing might happen.

These are some of the concerns of the conservative sector of this society, the so called "guardian of morality." Before, this moniker was given to the board, but now the board is no longer the "guardian of morality." The parents, the conservative Catholic Church and other Christian Churches, and conservative individuals or groups out there are the "guardian of morality."

The Appeals Committee

Section 4, Paragraph 5 of the P.D. 1986 states the role of the Appeals Committee. It says:

"The second decision of the board shall be final, with the exception of a decision disapproving or prohibiting a motion picture or television prgram in its entirety which shall be appealable to the President of the Philippines, who may himself decide the appeal, or be assisted by an ad hoc committee he may create or by the Appeals Committee herein created.

An Appeals Committee in the Office of the President of the Philippines is hereby created composed of Chairman and four (4) members to be appointed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines, which shall submit its recommendation to the President. The Office of the President Assistant for Legal Affairs shall serve as the Secretariat of the Appeals Committee.

The decision of the President on any appealed matter shall be final" (MTRCB Rules and Regulations, 1998: 8).

The Appeals Committee is the last resort of the movie producers and directors. Many movies in the past, especially during the Ramos administration, that were disapproved by the board after second review were granted permission or approval by the committee. All of these movies have sexual scenes and depict violence. This shows us that the Appeals Committee, which is under the Office of the President, has a great influence on the policy output of the board.

Perhaps, the policy decisions of the committee in the past are another basis why self-regulation was adopted. The Appeals Committee in the past was somehow liberal and lax on the censorship policy. There was an inconsistency then between the board's policy and the Appeals Committee's policy. The committee's decisions in the past, as what the analyst observed, signal the abolition of the censorship policy and the adoption of self-regulation.

Self-regulation: Problems and Issues

The analyst described above the different groups and situations that influenced the formulation of self-regulation policy. He also identified the group that is affected negatively by the policy.

Before this discussion moves into the problems and issues that are connected or related to the policy, the analyst will summarize first how these groups influenced the creation of the policy. First, most of the members of the board came from the movie industry. They once criticized the censorship policy of the MTRCB and advocated for freedom of expression.

Another factor that influenced the creation of the self-regulation policy is the economic situation of the movie industry. The industry is experiencing economic turmoil, as articulated by Sotto, and sexually oriented movies are the last resort of movie producers since these movies have low production costs and result to high profits in the box-office. Thirdly, the policies or decisions of the Appeals Committee at the Office of the President signaled the "abandonment" of the conservative censorship policy.

The conservatives, who once have the great influence in the MTRCB, are now on the streets. They replaced the place of the movie producers and directors, criticizing the policies of the board.

There is a policy model, which is called as the group theory. This theory says that public policies are equilibrium in the group struggle (Dye, 1995: 24). Groups here are the interest groups. They are the policy actors surrounding the policy. Dye further says:

"This equilibrium is determined by the relative influence of any interest groups. Changes in the relative influence of any interest groups can be expected to result in changes in public policy; policy will move in direction desired by the groups gaining influence and away from the desires of the group losing influence" (Dye, 1995: 24).

The self-regulation policy is a good example of this model (not only this policy but also the past policies of the MTRCB, which was once influenced by the conservatives). The movie industry, and the groups associated with it, has a great influence now on the board because their colleagues compose the majority of the board. And the chairperson, who comes from the movie industry, a producer and an actress, is a number one critic of the censorship policy.

This is the main problem with this policy: the surmountable influence of the movie personalities, groups, and individuals. Self-regulation, as what the analyst perceived, addresses only the needs, goals, and values of the movie industry. It addresses the problem of censorship, which is a threat to the interests of the movie producers and filmmakers.

Problems

Thus, the number one problem that this paper addresses is the effectiveness of the policy. Can this be implemented by the movie producers and directors? The persons involved, especially those who from the movie industry, might not implement this policy successfully because they gain a lot of profit from bold movies. At this time, the industry is experiencing economic setback. Hence, the public should expect the production of bold movies because the industry earns a lot from it.

Speaking of moral interest, the second problem of this policy is, can this address the moral issue in violent and obscene movies, which is one of the goals of the MTRCB as stated in PD 1986? There is a high possibility that violent and obscene movies will rise into great numbers because of this policy. If bold movies in the past, where the boards were strict in imposing censorship, how much more in the implementation of this new policy, where it signals liberalism in movie making.

Speaking of the increase in the number of bold movies, can this policy protect the youth from moral "damage" brought about by the obscene and violent movies? The young ones do not know yet what is real or reel, good or bad, moral or immoral. They have the great tendency to imitate what they saw or experienced in the movies.

Some psychologists have theorized that maturity and youthfulness do depend on your age, because they believe that it is a state of the mind. Cruz says in his article that he observed how immature Filipinos are in watching R-18 movies for they do what they do not suppose to do inside the cinema (date of publication not indicated). Wilhelmina Orozco added to this, she says that "male audience in those lower-class theaters are a bit too crass in displaying their own urges inside the movie theaters. They could easily imitate what is happening on the screen..." (Orozco, 1997: 18). She says that instead of R-18, the MTRCB should make it R-30, where the male reached their maturity, psychologically.

Issues

There are issues that this paper wants to address. First, the policy is against the "spirit" of the PD 1986. Provisions in PD 1986 strictly define the powers and functions of the MTRCB, these are to delete, to ban, to classify movies, which according to the board's judgment are obscene and violence and not suitable for public viewing. The PD 1986, in its "whereas" part, mentioned about self-regulation, but it does not state that the board should allow self-regulation.

Maybe, the board should wait first for the law to be amended before they make such policy, because rules and regulations should be in accordance with the law. The board is empowered by the PD 1986 to make rules and regulations and even to change it. But, it does not empower the board to make rules and regulations, which are not in "tune" with its "spirit."

PD 1986, as what the members of the argued, is a Marcos legacy. It is no longer in "tune" with the democratic principles of our Constitution. But, a law is still a law unless repealed or amended by the Congress, not any agency.

The policy seems to protect only the interest of the movie industry. As analyzed in the earlier portion of this part, there is an imbalance in this policy because it addresses only the concern of a certain group and not the society at large. The board created this policy in order to respond to the changes in the concept of movie making (de Vega, 1975: 100). There are many changes that occurred in the concept of movies. Movies now are created to depict reality and shun away morality. The movie industry justifies the creation of obscene and violent movies by saying that it depict reality: the realities of prostitution, sexual abuse, drug addiction, etc. (Are these the only realities that producers and directors should depict in their movies?)

This paper wants to emphasize the issue of "equity". There is no equity in the policy of the MTRCB because of the great influence of different interest groups. This policy is a product of "inequity". The different groups do not reach any equilibrium. Instead, they use their influence to protect their interests and achieve their goals at the expense of the other group and of the society as a whole.

III. ALTERNATIVES

The analyst described above the policy of self-regulation, i.e. its content and context. Also, the different problems and issues of the policy were also discussed. In the discussion of these problems and issues surrounding the policy, the analyst brought out the weaknesses of the policy. Hence, the analyst now recommends possible alternatives of this policy.

Alternative One: Repeal PD 1986, Abolish the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB)

The Presidential Decree that created the MTRCB is enacted by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. They call it a "Marcos legacy," which still imbibes the spirit of martial law and dictatorial regime.

Thus, it is against our present Constitution, which embraces democratic principles: the principles of freedom of expression, of speech, and of the press. This Constitution does not allow censorship, and the presence of the MTRCB is unconstitutional. Thus, there is a need to repeal the law and abolish the board.

However, there are persons, especially theologians and moral philosophers, who believe that there is no such thing as absolute freedom, even in a democratic country like the Philippines. "Individual freedom have to be curtailed for the sake of the higher good; the good of others, the good of the community as a whole" (Stork).

Abolishing a regulatory body that will protect the innocence of the young Filipino people from moral corruption is dangerous. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure not only physical and material protection to its people, but moral protection as well. Moral values, which reflect the cultural values and tradition of a certain of a society, should be protected and preserved by the government.

The government should protect the youth from moral corruption, because they are the future generation of this society. They are the hope of every country, in its political, economic, and social survival. What kind of country the Philippines would be fifty years from now if young Filipinos are being corrupted by those obscene and violent movies. Psychologists say that these movies have an impact on the way people think. The way people think has an effect on the way they act, talk, and relate to others.

Repealing PD 1986 and abolishing the MTRCB are not good solution to the problem. They will only create huge problem to the society. The only group that will be benefited by this is the movie industry. This is not good for the society as a whole.

Alternative Two: Amend PD 1986, make MTRCB a review and classification board without censorship

Individuals even those from the movie industry believe that there is need for a regulatory body. But this body will not censor movies rather it will strictly classify and review movies.

Thus, PD 1986 should be amended. The provisions which empower the board to censor, delete, ban movies should be changed. Objective criteria for judging a movie, either as obscene, violent or not, should be articulated clearly. Pornography, obscenity, violence in movies should be strictly and clearly defined.

There is still a need for a regulatory body to supervise the showing of movies according to audience suitability (Gatdula, 1997: C3). And a body controls the abuses of movie producers and filmmakers.

There is no problem with this alternative. It is only required that the government should monitor cinemas so that classification is strictly followed and no minors should be allowed to watch the movie.

Alternative Three: Strict Classification, "X" rated cinemas

Classifying movies according to groups of audience that are suited to watch the movie, and allowing certain movie houses to exhibit "X" rated movies, is the best alternative, if not the only alternative.

Classification system is being practiced by the boards of the MTRCB since it was created. Past board chairpersons explained that they censor movies because the law does not allow cinemas to exhibit "X" rated movies, and there is no such thing as "X" rating (for public viewing). The ratings are General Patronage, Parental Guidance, PG-13, and R-18 (for adults only).

George F. Sison suggests that "instead of banning a movie or TV program simply because of one scene that the censors feel is objectionable, the people should just be told to what to expect from it and be alerted on how it could affect them, thus allowing them to decide for themselves" (Today, 1995: 18).

The performance of classification in the past is not fully appreciated by the public, because of the presence of censorship. Classification is associated with censorship. The boards in the past censored and then classified, because of the argument that there is no "X" rating allowed by the law. Thus, in the amendment of the PD 1986, a provision, which states the certain cinemas can exhibit "X" rated movies, should be included.

This is a practical alternative for the moment. This is a "win-win" solution for the conservatives' and the liberals' interest will be addressed and protected. Again, the government should only need strict monitoring of cinemas that exhibit "X" rated films to ensure that no minors will be allowed to watch the said movie.

Alternative Four: Censorship

Censorship is not obsolete. Societies need this for the common good or welfare of its people. According to de Vega, it is needed to keep the moral balance of the society (de Vega, 1975: 97). The problem only with censorship, according to de Vega, is the determining of the "proper balance whereby free expression is exercised with the least impediment and without doing violence to our moral values, and the people are protected from the exploitation of their human weaknesses" (de Vega, 1975: 86).

This is the problem of censorship in the Philippines: in protecting the moral values from corruption and exploitation, it "hurts" the freedom of expression. Thus, the censorship policy is not fully appreciated by some sectors of this society. For them, it is against the democratic principle of the freedom of expression.

Creating another censorship policy in this country will only create "noise" and controversies among the different interest groups as what happened in the past. Certainly, this policy looses its appeal in democratic countries and mature societies.

IV. POLICY RECOMMENDATION: AMEND PD 1986, ENFORCE STRICTLY CLASSIFICATION, ALLOW CERTAIN CINEMAS TO EXHIBIT "X" RATED MOVIES

The policies of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) are greatly influenced by the values and sentiments of the members of the board. The way they perceive and view things reflect on the policies that they formulated. Different groups have influence on the policy making of the board. Before, the conservatives, headed by the Catholic Church, exercised a great influence on the board. Now, with Armida Siguion-Reyna on the front seat, a movie producer, actress, and number one critic of the censorship policy, the movie industry, including the liberals or progressives in the field of arts, have the great influence on the board. Thus, it resulted to the formulation and implementation of the self-regulation policy, which is the subject of this study.

Using a policy model, the group theory approach, in analyzing this policy, the analyst finds out that the policy addresses only the values and needs of the movie industry. Putting at disadvantage the protection of the cultural values of the society and the moral values of the youth, which could be destroyed by obscene and violent movies.

Thus, this study proposes a recommendation, which will not only respond to the needs of the movie industry, but will also protect the cultural and moral values of Filipino individuals and of the society as a whole.

These policy alternatives suit the four criteria that was explained above. First, these policy alternatives have the higher possibility of achieving the goals of the MTRCB, which are to protect the Filipino cultural values, and morality of the youth, and to enhance the movie industry as an economic tool.

By classification, there will be no restrictions on the movies, whatever kind of movies they are. Movie producers will not be afraid to invest their money in making movies, because there is no longer censorship. They have one hundred percent assurance that their movie will not be banned or deleted. Movie producers will be encourage to invest more money in this business, because they know that profit will come in since there is no censorship, and there are cinemas, which can exhibit "X" rated movies.

By classification, the youth will be protected from moral and cultural values degradation, because strict classification will not allow minors to watch movies "for adults."

Thus, there is a need for strict monitoring of the board in movie houses to see to it that minors are not allowed to enter into R-18 movies and "X" rated cinemas. Since the board lacks in manpower to do this, the local government units should be given responsibility and authority to monitor movie houses and report to the board any violation for proper legal action.

The role of the board now is to classify and review movies, not to censor. They will give the movie its proper and appropriate classification: General Patronage, Parental Guidance, R-18, and X-rated. And it should give the viewers proper advice or notice on the content of the film, which will be posted on the entrance of the movie houses, or on ticket booths, or on posters being released by the movie producers for advertising purposes.

But there is a need to amend first the law, PD 1986, which created the MTRCB, because the law does not allow "X" rated movies to be exhibited, and advocates censorship. Strict classification and "X" rated movies' exhibition on certain cinemas should be defined in amending PD 1986. And censorship, which is the deletion and banning of certain films and movies, should be deleted.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Batnag, Dana (1990). "Struggling with the Scissors" in Philippine Graphic. Vol. 1 No. 20.

Conde, Calorie (1991). "Pinoy Films: From Bad to Worse" in Philippine Graphic. Vol. 2 No 13.

Constantino, Tejero ((1990). "Censorship in Philippine Movies and Television: Anathema" in Sunday Inquirer Magazine. Vol. 5 No. 37-40.

Cruz, Isagani (1994). "Defending MTRCB" in Philippine Starweek. Vol. 8 No. 4.

De Vega, Guillermo (1975). Film and Freedom: Movie Censorship in the Philippine. (place of publishing and publisher not indicated).

Del Carmen, CP (1981). "What if Nick Joaquin Was A Movie Censor And Liked What He Saw In'Manila By Night'?" in Who. Vol. 3.

Dunn, William (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall , Inc.

Dye, Thomas (1995). Understanding Public Policy. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Elampano, Star (1990). "The Law and Manoling Morato" in Midweek. Vol. 5 No. 17.

Flores, A. O. (1989). "Censorship: An Ethical Necessity" in Mr & Ms. Vol. 14 No. 32.

Lacaba, Jose (1987). "Censorship vs. Classification" in National Midweek. Vol. 2 No. 26.

Lazaro, Ma. Eloisa (1996). "Jesus Sison: Redirecting Censorship" in Philippine Graphic. Vol. 7 No. 23.

Mediawatch (1993). "Filmmakers Appeal to President Ramos" in Mediawatch.

Mella, Cesar (1993). "Campaign Against Moral Pollution" in Philippine Graphic. Vol. 3 No. 47.

Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (1998). Presidential Decree No. 1986 and Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Pastor, Cristina (1983). "Free the Artist, yes, What About the Rest?" in Who. Vol. 4.

Rosales, Vicente (1994). "The Question of Censorship" in Philippine Panorama. Vol. 23 No. 14.

Santoalla, Annie C. (1998). "Social Ills Cannot Be Blamed On Media" in Women In Action. No. 1.

Sotto, Agustin (1998). "Contemporary Philippine Cinema" in Contemporary Philippine Culture: Selected Papers on Arts and Education. The Japan Foundation. Manila: The Japan Foundation.

Torre, Ricky (1994). "Censoring the Censors" in Philippine Free Press. Vol. 85 No. 32-33.