The Directors’ Guild of the Philippines Inc. (DGPI) strongly opposes the Senate bill seeking to extend the regulatory powers of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) to online-generated content. The film directors’ group also claimed that MTRCB is being used by the government as a “cash cow.”

Senate Bill 2805 is sponsored by actor-turned-senator Robin Padilla, with fellow senators Lito Lapid, Grace Poe

Bong Revilla being among the co-sponsors. The entertainment website PEP.ph has commented that it is ironic (kakatwa) that prominent personalities in the film industry favor an expansion of the MTRCB’s powers.

The website also recently reported that actors Lorna Tolentino, Janice de Belen and Joey Marquez oppose the Senate bill. Tolentino is romantically linked to Lapid due to their work on a well-followed ABS-CBN series. Both deny being in a romantic dalliance.

Meanwhile, the DGPI statement lashed at the Padilla bill on 4 June: “In its Declaration of Policy, the proposed law deletes the current law’s intentions for self-regulation of the film/TV industries and converts the MTRCB into a parens patriae (parent of the country), concentrating instead on its self-anointed role as guardian of public morals — a narrow reading of the State’s protective function as it serves only those who find it convenient to yield their parental guardian duties to the MTRCB.”

The organization also stressed that while it supports the classification of content implemented by MTRCB, it “opposes the bill’s retention of the X-rating, which bans exhibition of provocative or unorthodox content to adults who have the right to decide what they should or should not see.”

It also argued that the bill “seeks to sabotage” the attempts to re-energize the local film industry with its draconian provisions.”

The statement further declared against the senate bill: “It seems set to cannibalize what is left with these absurd acts of legislation, best evidenced by the unnecessary drain of finances allotted for ‘each of the thirty (30) members of the board.’ (SB 2805, Page 8, Line 1).”

The DGPI added that the Senate bill is a redundant law that would “further destroy content creators’ rights to free expression and viewers’ rights to free access to expression.”

“The bill’s supporters seem to think the film/TV community is not mature, prepared, or responsible enough to deserve self-regulation and the freedom of expression enjoyed by other forms of expression… Let us not hinder our current and future creatives from freely exploring and sharing their experiences with these unnecessary and artificial barriers,” it continued.

“To reiterate, the DGPI stands against expansion of MTRCB’s jurisdiction into the online streaming space because it is largely a private viewing experience, and does not count as public exhibition, and deplores this attempt by the MTRCB to discriminate against those in the audio-visual sector that encompasses film, television, and streaming,” it added.

Concluding its statement, the DGPI protested, “No to censorship, State control of hearts and minds, discrimination, use of the MTRCB as cash cow and the MTRCB’s incursion into streaming. Yes to freedom of expression, freedom of access to expression, respect for the filmmaker’s and the public’s hearts and minds. No to Senate Bill No. 2805.”

The MTRCB, in turn, released a statement calling out the organization and rejecting the accusation that the agency is being used as a “cash cow.”

“This is an unfair and baseless claim. The MTRCB is a government agency with a clear mandate to protect the public, most especially children, from harmful content,” it said.

“To describe our mandate as profit-driven is both misleading and disrespectful to the 31 board members, many of whom the DGPI knows and may have worked with in the past,” it continued. “The remark disrespects the dedicated men and women of the MTRCB who have devoted their careers to monitoring, reviewing and rating thousands of local and international materials to ensure they align with contemporary Filipino cultural values.”

The MTRCB also pointed out that the Senate Bill seeking to expand its jurisdiction “is still far from becoming law and presents ample opportunity for further scrutiny, refinement and consultation.”

“We appeal to all stakeholders to approach this matter with reason and respect. We expect no less than civility from entities like the DGPI, which is not a government agency, especially in public discourse,” it said. 

MTRCB chair Diorella “Lala” Sotto-Antonio previously expressed her support for the proposed amendment, saying it “seeks to establish appropriate mechanisms for cooperation with online streaming platforms and online curated content providers (OCCs) and streaming videos on-demand (SVOD).”

The MTRCB, however, noted that the House of Representatives has yet to pass its version of the bill. “So, it may continue into the next Congress, where it will be subjected to deliberations and further discussions. The amendments seek to establish appropriate mechanisms for cooperation with online streaming platforms and online curated content providers (OCCs) and streaming videos on demand (SVOD). These include the adoption of safeguards such as ‘safety by design’ principles and the creation of structured feedback mechanisms and accountability.”

The MTRCB stressed that “while the amendments include OCCS and SVODs in the coverage of MTRCB, the Board does not seek to rate or review these materials.”

“Rather, the measure seeks to ensure that the State is not left helpless in addressing valid concerns and issues such as harmful online contents, particularly materials involving child abuse, exploitation, or voyeurism.”

The MTRCB, nevertheless, emphasized that the protection of children is their utmost priority. “In the end, it is our collective hope that any amendment should be firmly anchored on the principle that the protection of children is a top priority.”

The agency then clarified that while the amendments include OCCS and SVODs in its jurisdiction, the board does not seek to rate or review these materials and that there will be “no prior constraint” before these are shown.