Soriano v Laguardia

April 29, 2009

Velasco Jr., J.
Petitioner: Eliseo Soriano
Respondents: Ma. Consoliza S. Laguardia, as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification
Board (MTRCB), MTRCB, Jessie L. Galapon, Anabel M. Dela Cruz, Manuel M. Hernandez, Jose L. Lopez, Crisanto
Soriano, Bernabe S. Yaria, Jr., Michael M. Sandoval, and Roldan A Gavino
Short version: Soriano said bad words as host of Ang Dating Daan, which was a G-rated program. Complaints were
filed against him with the MTRCB. The show was given a preventive suspension for 20 days. Afterwards, it was given
a 3-month suspension as penalty. Soriano filed cases with the SC questioning both these decisions. Soriano mainly
invoked the freedom of expression. The SC held that Soriano is wrong about ALL his contentions. Just because he
said what he said on a religious does not put his statements under religious expression. MTRCB imposed a
permissible restriction/subsequent punishment. However, their jurisdiction does not extend to the Soriano, so they
cant suspend him. They can only suspend the TV show hes on.
Facts:
On Aug. 10, 2004, at around 10:00pm, Soriano, as host of Ang Dating Daan, made the following remarks,
o Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba.
Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di
ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang
kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito
Affidavit-complaints were lodged before MTRCB by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all
members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against Soriano in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent
Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in Sorianos remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular
host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan. MTRCB sent Soriano a notice of the hearing on August 16, 2004.
MTRCB preventively suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan program for 20 days, in accordance with
Section 3(d) of PD1986
1
, in relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004 IRR of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the
MTRCB Rules of Procedure. The same order also set the case for preliminary investigation.
Soriano sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension, praying that Laguardia and two other
members of the adjudication board recuse themselves from hearing the case.
o Two days after, Soriano withdrew the MR and filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
the SC, to nullify the preventive suspension order (1
st
SC case).
In Adm. Case No. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a decision finding Soriano liable for his utterances and
imposing a 3-month suspension from Ang Dating Daan.
o Soriano filed petition for certiorari and prayer for injunctive relief (2
nd
SC case). Court then
consolidate the 2 petitions.

Issues:
1) Did the MTRCB err in imposing the preventive suspension? NO
2) Did the MTRCB err in suspending Soriano from Ang Dating Daan? YES, since it can only suspend the show itself,
and not Soriano

Ratio:
In the 1
st
SC case, regarding the order of preventive suspension
1) Soriano contends that the preventive suspension and the IRR authorizing it are invalid because PD1986 does
not authorize MTRCB to issue preventive suspension

1 CREATING THE MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD
a. The issuance of a preventive suspension is within the scope of the MTRCBs authority and functions
expressly set forth in PD 1986
b. Sec. 3(d) empowers the MTRCB to supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for the x x x
exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials,
to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be
objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be x x x exhibited and/or broadcast by
television.
c. Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself, but only a preliminary step in an administrative
investigation. The power to discipline and impose penalties carries with it the power to investigate
administrative complaints and, during such investigation, to preventively suspend the person subject of
the complaint.
d. Even if the preventive suspension is expressly provided for only in the IRR, it still would not deprive
MTRCB of the such power, because it is an implied power also under Sec. 3(k) of PD1986 which provides,
To exercise such powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the
purposes and objectives of this Act x x x.
2) Soriano contends that preventive suspension is only applicable to motion pictures and publicity materials
a. Scope of MTRCB authority goes beyond motion pictures. The acronym itself says so.
3) Soriano contends that the suspension order is invalid for lack of hearing
a. Once again, Soriano is wrong because the order was issued after the Soriano appeared before the MTRCB
for a hearing. Even Soriano admits this.
b. At any event, preventive suspension can be validly meted out even without hearing.
4) Soriano faults MTRCB for denying him the right to equal protection, since he was unable to answer the criticism
coming from the INC ministers
a. Equal protection means that those in the same classes should be treated alike.
b. Soriano cant place himself in the same class as the INC ministers who are not facing administrative
sanctions, and who have also not used such offensive language in their own shows.
5) Soriano contends that what he uttered was religious speech, that words like putang babae were said in
exercise of his religious freedom
a. There is nothing in Sorianos statements subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious
belief, nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission.
b. Just because it was said in a televised bible exposition program does not automatically accord them the
character of a religious discourse. Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated
to the status of religious speech.
c. He was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by any religious conviction.
In the 2
nd
SC case, suspending Soriano as host of Ang Dating Daan.
Before going into the issues raised by Soriano, SC lectured on certain general concepts and principles underlying
freedom of speech and expression
1) Expressions by means of newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures come within the broad protection of
the free speech and expression clause, but enjoy a lesser level of protection.
2) Restrictions, be it subsequent punishment or prior restraint, are anathema to freedom of expression.
3) This freedom, however, is not absolute, and may be regulated to some extent so serve public interests. Some
forms of speech are not protected.
4) Speech would be unprotected if the utterances involved are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are
of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed
by the social interest in order and morality.
Issues
1) Soriano asserts that his utterance is a protected form of speech
a. Unprotected speech or low-value expression refers to libelous statements, obscenity or pornography,
false or misleading advertisement, insulting or fighting words
b. SC find that his statement can be treated as obscene
i. In Miller v California, the basic guidelines as to obscenity were (a) whether to the average person,
applying contemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
c. While the statements could be treated merely as indecent utterances, it was also made in a show that was
rated G and during a timeslot when children would likely be watching
d. Even if adults would be able to understand that the words should not be taken literally, children do not
have the same discernment. Such language could corrupt impressionable young minds.
e. SC cited Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Pacifica Foundation, where indecent language was
treated as obscene because the Court considered that it was broadcasted through radio (1) radio is a
pervasive medium and (2) broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children
f. In Chavez v. Gonzales, distinction was made between protected speech that is content-based and that
which is content-neutral.
i. Content-based restraint is aimed at the contents or idea of the expression
ii. Content-neutral restraint intends to regulate the time, place, and manner of the expression under
well-defined standards tailored to serve a compelling state interest, without restraint on the
message of the expression. Courts subject content-based restraint to strict scrutiny.
g. In this case, MTRCB imposed a permissible restriction, especially because
i. The indecent speech was made via television, which is easily accessible to children
ii. Broadcast was aired during a time of day when there was a reasonable risk children might be in the
audience
iii. It was made on a G or general patronage rated program
2) Soriano asserts that his utterances must present a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantive evil
that the State has a right and duty to prevent and such danger must be grave and imminent
a. The clear and present danger doctrine cant be applied to the present case
i. The doctrine evolved in the context of prosecutions for rebellion and other crimes involving the
overthrow of government. It applies to cases involving the overthrow of the government and even
other evils which do not clearly undermine national security.
b. SC applied the balancing of interests tests
i. The assertion by Soriano of his enjoyment of his freedom of speech is balanced against the duty of
the government to protect and promote the development and welfare of the youth.
c. SC rules that the governments interest to protect and promote the interests and welfare of the children
adequately buttresses the reasonable curtailment and valid restraint on Sorianos prayer to continue as
program host of Ang Dating Daan during the suspension period.
d. Right to freedom of speech is fundamental, but the youth also has the right to their moral, spiritual, social,
and intellectual being protected under the Constitution. State is also mandated to recognize and support
the vital role of the youth in nation building (Art. II, Sec. 13).
e. THUS, Sorianos offensive and indecent language can be subjected to prior restraint
3) Soriano theorizes that the three (3)-month suspension is either prior restraint or subsequent punishment that,
however, includes prior restraint, albeit indirectly.
a. SC that what MTRCB imposed on Soriano is an administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for his
offensive and obscene language
b. The power of review and prior approval of MTRCB extends to all television programs and is valid despite
the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution (MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation).
c. The right to freedom of speech of broadcast networks is subject to the regulations of the MTRCB,
otherwise, chaos would ensue
d. The three (3) months suspension in this case is not a prior restraint on the right of Soriano to continue
with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as a permit was already issued to him by MTRCB for such
broadcast.
e. The suspension is in the form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for the
offensive and obscene remarks he uttered on the evening of August 10, 2004 in his television program,
Ang Dating Daan.
f. Soriano is deemed to have yielded his right to his full enjoyment of his freedom of speech to regulation
under PD 1986 and its IRR as television station owners, program producers, and hosts have impliedly
accepted the power of MTRCB to regulate the broadcast industry.
4) Soriano argues that there has been undue delegation of legislative power, as PD 1986 does not provide for the
range of imposable penalties that may be applied with respect to violations of the provisions of the law.
a. The power of the MTRCB to regulate and supervise the exhibition of TV programs carries with it or
necessarily implies the authority to take effective punitive action for violation of the law sought to be
enforced.
b. The IRR does not expand the mandate of the MTRCB under the law or partake of the nature of an
unauthorized administrative legislation.
c. Administrative regulations or subordinate legislation calculated to promote the public interest are
necessary because of the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of
governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the law.
5) HOWEVER, the decision to suspend Soriano must be modified, because the MTRCB is not empowered to
suspend the program host or even to prevent certain people from appearing in television programs.
a. It may prohibit the broadcast of such television programs or cancel permits for exhibition, but it may not
suspend television personalities, for such would be beyond its jurisdiction.
b. The suspension should cover only the television program on which Soriano appeared and uttered the
offensive and obscene language.
c. The decision of the MTRCB in in giving the 3-month suspension is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of
limiting the suspension to the program Ang Dating Daan.

Tinga, J., concurring.
Justice Carpio dissents as he feels that the three-month suspension of petitioners TV program constitutes an
unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression. However, said suspension is, much more so, a form of
subsequent punishment, levied petitioner in response to the blatantly obscene remarks he had uttered on his
television program on the night of 10 August 2004. The primary intent of the suspension is to punish petitioner
for such obscene remarks he had made on the broadcast airwaves, and not to restrain him from exercising his
right to free expression.
The MTRCB is vested under its organic law with ample powers to impose prior restraint on television programs.
Section 7 of Pres. Decree No. 1986 declares it unlawful to air any television program unless it had been duly
reviewed and approved by the MTRCB. Such power of review and prior approval of the MTRCB extends to all
television programseven news and public affairs programsand is valid notwithstanding the constitutional
guarantee to free expression. Moreover, in conducting its prior review of all television programs, the MTRCB has
the power to approve or disapprove, or to delete "objectionable" portions of such television programs
submitted for its approval, based on the standards set forth in Section 3 of Pres. Decree No. 1986.

Corona, J., separate (only part in the entire case where public office shows up)
A person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his rights, that is, when he acts with
prudence and good faith, not when he acts with negligence or abuse.

The exercise of a right ends when the right
disappears and it disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others.

The mask of a right without
the spirit of justice which gives it life is repugnant to the modern concept of law.


J. Corona had 4 main points: First, a general grant of power is a grant of every particular and specific power
necessary for the exercise of such general power.Other than powers expressly conferred by law on them,
administrative agencies may lawfully exercise powers that can be reasonably inferred in the wordings of the
enabling law. Section 3(d) of PD 1986 explicitly gives the MTRCB the power to supervise and regulate the
television broadcast of all television programs. Under Section 3(e) the MTRCB is also specifically empowered to
classify television programs. The law intends to give the MTRCB all the muscle to carry out and enforce the law
effectively.
Second, the grant of a greater power necessarily includes the lesser power. The MTRCB has the power to cancel
permits for the exhibition or television broadcast of programs determined by the said body to be objectionable
for being "immoral, indecent, contrary to law or good customs x x x."

This power is a power to impose
sanctions
2
.
Third, broadcasters are public trustees. Hence, in a sense, they are accountable to the public like public officers.
Public accountability imposes a three-fold liability, criminal, civil and administrative. As such, the imposition of
suspension as an administrative penalty is justified by the nature of the broadcasters role vis--vis the public.
Finally, the infraction of MTRCB rules and regulations through the showing of indecent, scandalous, insulting or
offensive material constitutes a violation of various fundamental rights of the viewing public, including the right
of every person to dignity; the right of parents to develop the moral character of their children; the right of the
youth to the promotion and protection by the State of their moral well-being and the right to privacy.

Carpio, J., dissenting
I dissent because the three-month suspension of petitioners TV program Ang Dating Daan constitutes an
unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression. The suspension prevents petitioner from even
reciting the Lords Prayer, or even saying "hello" to viewers, in his TV program. The suspension bars the public
airing of petitioners TV program regardless of whatever subject matter petitioner, or anyone else, wishes to
discuss in petitioners TV program.
No matter how offensive, profane or vulgar petitioners words may be, they do not constitute pornography, false
or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, or danger to national security. Thus,
petitioners offensive, profane or vulgar language cannot be subject to prior restraint but may be subject to
subsequent punishment if defamatory or tortious.
Any prior restraint is strongly presumed to be unconstitutional and the government bears a heavy burden of
justifying such prior restraint.

Such prior restraint must pass the clear and present danger test. The majority
opinion, which imposes a prior restraint on expression, is totally bereft of any discussion that petitioners
ranting poses a clear and present danger to the State that is grave and imminent. The respondents have not
presented any credible justification to overcome the strong presumption of unconstitutionality accorded to the
three-month suspension order.


2 Defined as: The whole or part of a prohibition, limitation or other condition affecting the liberty of any person; the withholding
of relief; the imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction, taking, seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of damages,
reimbursement, restitution, compensation, cost, charges or fees; the revocation or suspension of license; or the taking of other
compulsory or restrictive action.