Blackening Silver Screens

According to Internet Movie Database of 2003, 63.1% households in the Philippines have televisions. After sharing a bountiful dinner, a Filipino family would stay in the living room to watch prime time TV shows and spend the weekends in a movie house. The underground economy continues to grow because of the sale of pirated DVDs which is prevalent on the busy streets of the metro. Generally, Filipinos have easy access to broadcast media, like films and television shows. The media affects how people perceive things and may be able to shape a person's thoughts even without proper discernment. Because of the realization that media can affect how a person thinks about the world, several laws are passed to ensure that the media is regulated and public welfare is protected.

            In an attempt to protect the image of congressmen, Representative Aurelio Gonzales, Jr. proposed the passage of a bill to prohibit the typecasting of congressmen as villains and crooks in movies and television shows. House Resolution 2140, also known as Anti-Typecasting Bill has been criticized by professionals in the media industry because it is a curtailment of freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right granted by the constitution.  The Bill of Rights aims to protect the citizens from the state’s excessive use and abuse of its powers. One of the fundamental rights of an individual is freedom of expression. This is the constitutional mandate providing people the right to freely express their views and engage in mass media.

            On the other hand, in spite of the constitutional provision, the Congress also has a plenary legislative power. The Congress can create legislation that it thinks is appropriate to uphold public welfare. Police power of the state allows it to limit some rights of the citizens if such curtailment will be good for public welfare and public policy. Police power is an inherent power of the state which is present because of the state’s sovereignty.

            The proponent defends the bill by arguing that the portrayal of congressmen as crooks in movies damages the image of the profession. People who would see congressmen portrayed in movies as jueteng lords and goons who would beat another person until he bleeds to death, would likely think that these really happen in real life. If taken without proper discernment, the negative representations of congressmen may remain in the minds of the people which can make them subconsciously distrust the law makers.

            It can be inferred from the bill that it only covers congressmen and eliminates other public officers who are also vested with public trust. The exclusive coverage of the Anti-Typecasting Bill makes it a self-serving proposal. It is violative of the equal protection clause because it specifically protects the congressmen who legislate and leaves unprotected other public officers. On the other hand, if the coverage will become more inclusive, it will mean a stricter curtailment of the freedom of expression. A more inclusive coverage of the Anti-Typecasting Bill would surely be rebutted by producers, directors and actors who are forced to remain silent.

            In its current exclusive set-up, it has been criticized by directors and the head of MTRCB. The show business industry argued that negative portrayals of congressmen in movies also happen to other professions, like lawyers, doctors, teachers and engineers. The passing of the bill into law might create a precedent for other professions to demand the same. If this happens, the film and television industry would be limited to showing the positive, which is not really reflective of the imperfect society.

            Another way to look at it is that the Anti-Typecasting Bill only covers prohibition on works of fiction. It is not forbidden for broadcasters and journalists to report indecent and scandalous acts of legislators, even if these acts are direct threats to public welfare and against policy. The reporting of derogatory facts is a greater threat to the public perception of public officials than fictional accounts. The Anti-Typecasting Bill is an overly defensive and an escapist way of facing the issue. There should be a reasonable presumption that the households and individuals who have access to the media are capable of discernment in judging which shows are fictional and which are not. There is no need to blacken the silver screen.