Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ELISEO F. SORIANO,
Petitioner,
- versus MA. CONSOLIZA P.
LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as
Chairperson of the Movie and
Television Review and
Classification Board, MOVIE
AND TELEVISION REVIEW
AND CLASSIFICATION
BOARD, 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,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------
-x
ELISEO F. SORIANO,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 164785
- versus Present:
MOVIE AND TELEVISION
PUNO,REVIEW AND
QUISUMBING,
CLASSIFICATION BOARD,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE
CARPIO,
AQUINO-GAVINO, NOEL R.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL
CORONA,
BORLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO
CARPIO
IV,MORALES,
and FLORIMONDO C.
TINGA,
ROUS, in their capacity as
CHICO-NAZARIO,
members of the Hearing and
VELASCO,
Adjudication
JR.,
Committee of the
NACHURA,
MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON,
LEONARDO-DE
ANABEL M.
CASTRO,
DELA CRUZ,
BRION,
MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ,
PERALTA,
JOSEand
L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO
BERSAMIN,
SORIANO, BERNABE S.
YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M.
G.R. No.
SANDOVAL,
165636
and ROLDAN A.
Promu
April 2
following remarks:
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
broadcast.
Respondent
Michael
M.
Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in
petitioners remark, was then a minister of
INC and a regular host of the TV program
Ang Tamang Daan.[if !supportFootnotes][3][endif]
Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a
notice of the hearing on August 16, 2004 in
relation to the alleged use of some cuss
words in the August 10, 2004 episode of
Ang Dating Daan.[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif]
After a preliminary conference in
which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by
Order of August 16, 2004, preventively
suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan
program for 20 days, in accordance with
Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD)
1986, creating the MTRCB, in relation to
Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the
MTRCB Rules of Procedure.[if !supportFootnotes][5]
[endif]
The same order also set the case for
preliminary investigation.
Co-respondents
Joselito
Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz and UNTV
Channel 37 and its owner, PBC, are
hereby exonerated for lack of
evidence.
THE
SO ORDERED.[if !supportFootnotes][9]
[endif]
ORDER
OF
PREVENTIVE
SUSPENSION PROMULGATED BY
RESPONDENT [MTRCB] DATED
16 AUGUST 2004 AGAINST THE
TELEVISION PROGRAM ANG
DATING DAAN x x x IS NULL AND
VOID FOR BEING ISSUED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.[if !
supportFootnotes][10][endif]
[if !supportLists](E)
[endif]FOR BEING
II
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
While the thesis has a lot to commend
itself, we are not ready to hold that [PD 1986]
is unconstitutional for Congress to grant an
administrative body quasi-judicial power to
preview and classify TV programs and
enforce its decision subject to review by our
courts. As far back as 1921, we upheld this
setup in Sotto vs. Ruiz, viz:
regardless
of
its
character.[if
supportFootnotes][63][endif]
Bernas adds:
MTRCB proceedings.
Finally, petitioner 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.
The argument is without merit.
In Edu v. Ericta, the Court discussed
the matter of undue delegation of legislative
power in the following wise:
It is a fundamental principle
flowing from the doctrine of
separation of powers that Congress
may not delegate its legislative power
to the two other branches of the
government, subject to the exception
that local governments may over local
affairs participate in its exercise.
What cannot be delegated is the
and practicability.
Based
on
the
foregoing
pronouncements and analyzing the law in
question, petitioners protestation about
undue delegation of legislative power for the
sole reason that PD 1986 does not provide
for a range of penalties for violation of the
law is untenable. His thesis is that MTRCB,
in promulgating the IRR of PD 1986,
prescribing a schedule of penalties for
violation of the provisions of the decree,
went beyond the terms of the law.
Petitioners posture is flawed by the
erroneous assumptions holding it together,
the first assumption being that PD 1986 does
not prescribe the imposition of, or authorize
the MTRCB to impose, penalties for
violators of PD 1986. As earlier indicated,
Co-respondents
Joselito
Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz, and
UNTV Channel 37 and its owner,
PBC, are hereby exonerated for lack
of evidence.
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[if!supportFootnotes]
[endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][1][endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][11][endif]
Id. at 46.
Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116033,
February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 747.
[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif]
Pimentel v. COMELEC, Nos. L-53581-83,
December 19, 1980, 101 SCRA 769.
[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif]
Agpalo, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (2005);
citing Matienzon v. Abellera, G.R. No. 77632, June 8, 1988, 162
SCRA 1.
[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif]
Lastimoso v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 116801, April
6, 1995, 243 SCRA 497.
[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif]
Alonzo v. Capulong, G.R. No. 110590, May
10, 1995, 244 SCRA 80; Beja v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
97149, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 689.
[if !supportFootnotes][17][endif]
Chavez v. National Housing Authority, G.R.
No. 164527, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 235, 295-296; citing
Azarcon, supra note 12, at 761; Radio Communications of the
Philippines, Inc. v. Santiago, Nos. L-29236 & 29247, August 21,
1974, 58 SCRA 493, 497.
[if !supportFootnotes][18][endif]
63 Phil. 139, 177 (1936).
[if !supportFootnotes][19][endif]
Rollo (G.R. No. 164785), p. 12.
[if !supportFootnotes][20][endif]
Id. at 94.
[if !supportFootnotes][21][endif]
Id. at 95.
[if !supportFootnotes][22][endif]
Beja, supra note 16; Espiritu v. Melgar, G.R.
No. 100874, February 13, 1992, 206 SCRA 256.
[if !supportFootnotes][23][endif]
1 De Leon, PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 274 (2003).
[if !supportFootnotes][24][endif]
Tiu v. Guingona, G.R. No. 127410, January
20, 1999, 301 SCRA 278; citing Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil.
1155 (1957) and other cases.
[if !supportFootnotes][25][endif]
US v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S.
131; Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., No. L59329, July 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 628.
[if !supportFootnotes][26][endif]
Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans,
Jr., supra note 25; citing FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S.
726; Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, No. L-69500, July 22, 1985,
137 SCRA 717.
[if !supportFootnotes][12][endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][27][endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][49][endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][70][endif]
[if !supportFootnotes][71][endif]
Id.
Id.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 151908
August 12, 2003
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART) and
PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION (PILTEL),
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
(NTC), respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 152063 August 12, 2003
GLOBE TELECOM, INC. (GLOBE) and ISLA
COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. (ISLACOM),
petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (The Former 6th Division)
and the NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers, the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
issued on June 16, 2000 Memorandum Circular No.
13-6-2000, promulgating rules and regulations on the
billing of telecommunications services. Among its
pertinent provisions are the following:
(1) The billing statements shall be received by the
subscriber of the telephone service not later than 30
days from the end of each billing cycle. In case the
statement is received beyond this period, the
subscriber shall have a specified grace period within
which to pay the bill and the public telecommunications
entity (PTEs) shall not be allowed to disconnect the
service within the grace period.
Memorandum Circular.
On August 30, 2000, the NTC issued a Memorandum
to all cellular mobile telephone service (CMTS)
operators which contained measures to minimize if not
totally eliminate the incidence of stealing of cellular
phone units. The Memorandum directed CMTS
operators to:
a. strictly comply with Section B(1) of MC 13-6-2000
requiring the presentation and verification of the
identity and addresses of prepaid SIM card customers;
b. require all your respective prepaid SIM cards
dealers to comply with Section B(1) of MC 13-6-2000;
c. deny acceptance to your respective networks
prepaid and/or postpaid customers using stolen
cellphone units or cellphone units registered to
somebody other than the applicant when properly
informed of all information relative to the stolen
cellphone units;
d. share all necessary information of stolen cellphone
units to all other CMTS operators in order to prevent
the use of stolen cellphone units; and
e. require all your existing prepaid SIM card customers
to register and present valid identification cards. 3
This was followed by another Memorandum dated
October 6, 2000 addressed to all public
telecommunications entities, which reads:
This is to remind you that the validity of all prepaid
cards sold on 07 October 2000 and beyond shall be
valid for at least two (2) years from date of first use
pursuant to MC 13-6-2000.
In addition, all CMTS operators are reminded that all
SIM packs used by subscribers of prepaid cards sold
on 07 October 2000 and beyond shall be valid for at
least two (2) years from date of first use. Also, the
billing unit shall be on a six (6) seconds pulse effective
07 October 2000.
For strict compliance.4
On October 20, 2000, petitioners Isla Communications
Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed
against the National Telecommunications Commission,
Commissioner
Joseph
A.
Santiago,
Deputy
Commissioner Aurelio M. Umali and Deputy
Commissioner Nestor C. Dacanay, an action for
declaration of nullity of NTC Memorandum Circular No.
13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular) and the NTC
Memorandum dated October 6, 2000, with prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order. The complaint was
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00-42221 at the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77.5
Petitioners Islacom and Piltel alleged, inter alia, that
the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of
consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since
such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade
and Industry under the Consumer Act of the
Philippines; that the Billing Circular is oppressive,
confiscatory and violative of the constitutional
prohibition against deprivation of property without due
process of law; that the Circular will result in the
impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular
service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration
of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the
requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers
and call balance announcement are unreasonable.
Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be
declared null and void ab initio.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 110193 January 27, 1994
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION VII OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND
SPORTS (DECS), MARCELO BALCASO, NUEVAS
MONTES AND GENEROSO CAPUYAN, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JESUS L.
TABILON, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of
RTC Branch 42, Dumaguete City, and CONSEJO
CATACUTAN, ANECIA LABE, EVELYN
TAMPARONG, VIOLETA CELIS, ANAVILLA G. TIZO,
ANATOLIO DELVO, JESSICA DELVO, EMILY
ABERDE, AURELIO PARPAN, LUTHGARDA ABLIR,
BEMBO TANGERES, AIDA CATAN, ISABELITA
CALUNSAG, MARIPOSA MENDOLA, JOSEPHINE
BELLO, GEREMIA UMBAC, ARCELA
GORDONCILLO, NESTOR GONZALES, GAUDIOSA
MARTINEZ, ELEUTERIO MERCADO, GENOVEVA
CORNELIA, DALISAY B. PINILI, BETSY FEROLINO,
FRANCO MANANQUIL, RUBEN A. OMANA, JAMES
B. CARAMPATANA, NENITA B. PALARPALAR,
ILUMINADO KABRISTANTE, ERLINDA MOLETA,
DINAH SARSAGA, PERLA HERNANDEZ, ROWENA
VAILOCES, GREGORIA CADALLO, AGRIPINA
LIBRADO, ZENAIDA TULABING, AND ELVIRA
LINGCONG, respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioners.
Francisco D. Yap for private respondents.
RESOLUTION
VITUG, J.:
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
"The clash of rights demands a delicate balancing of
interests approach which is a 'fundamental postulate of
constitutional law.'"
Once again the Court is asked to draw a carefully
drawn balance in the incessant conflicts between rights
and regulations, liberties and limitations, and
competing demands of the different segments of
society. Here, we are confronted with the need to strike
a workable and viable equilibrium between a
constitutional mandate to maintain free, orderly,
honest, peaceful and credible elections, together with
the aim of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space,
and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates
therefor, for public information campaigns and forums
among candidates, on one hand, and the imperatives
of a republican and democratic state, together with its
guaranteed rights of suffrage, freedom of speech and
of the press, and the people's right to information, on
the other.
In a nutshell, the present petitions may be seen as in
search of the answer to the question - how does the
Charter of a republican and democratic State achieve
a viable and acceptable balance between liberty,
without which, government becomes an unbearable
tyrant, and authority, without which, society becomes
an intolerable and dangerous arrangement?
Assailed in these petitions are certain regulations
promulgated by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) relative to the conduct of the 2013
1
10
11
12
liability.
Further, petitioners claim that Section 7 (d) is null and
void for unlawfully criminalizing acts not prohibited and
penalized as criminal offenses by R.A. No. 9006.
Section 14 of Resolution No. 9615, providing for a
candidate's or political party's "right to reply," is
likewise assailed to be unconstitutional for being an
improper exercise of the COMELEC's regulatory
powers; for constituting prior restraint and infringing
petitioners' freedom of expression, speech and the
press; and for being violative of the equal protection
guarantee. In addition to the foregoing, petitioner GMA
further argues that the Resolution was promulgated
without public consultations, in violation of petitioners'
right to due process. Petitioner ABC also avers that the
Resolution's definition of the terms "political
advertisement" and "election propaganda" suffers from
overbreadth, thereby producing a "chilling effect,"
constituting prior restraint.
On the other hand, respondent posits in its Comment
and Opposition dated March 8, 2013, that the petition
should be denied based on the following reasons:
Respondent contends that the remedies of certiorari
and prohibition are not available to petitioners,
because the writ of certiorari is only available against
the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers,
while the writ of prohibition only lies against the
exercise of judicial, quasijudicial or ministerial
functions. Said writs do not lie against the COMELEC's
administrative or rule-making powers.
Respondent likewise alleges that petitioners do not
have locus standi, as the constitutional rights and
freedoms they enumerate are not personal to them,
13
20
21
22
23
26
29
30
33
34
35
36
For
Candidates/Registere
d Political parties for a
National Elective
Position
For
Candidates/Registere
d Political parties for a
Local Elective Position
Chairman Brillantes
Yes, there was no abuse, okay, but there was some
advantage given to those who took ... who had the
more moneyed candidates took advantage of it.
Atty. Lucila
But that is the fact in life, Your Honor there are poor
candidates, there are rich candidates. No amount of
law or regulation can even level the playing filed (sic)
as far as the economic station in life of the candidates
are concern (sic) our Honor.
Given the foregoing observations about what
happened during the hearing, Petitioner-Intervenor
went on to allege that:
6.16. Without any empirical data upon which to base
the regulatory measures in Section 9 (a), respondent
Comelec arbitrarily changed the rule from per station
basis to aggregate airtime basis. Indeed, no credence
should be given to the cliched explanation of
respondent Comelec (i.e. leveling the playing field) in
its published statements which in itself is a mere
reiteration of the rationale for the enactment of the
political ad ban of Republic Act No. 6646, and which
has likewise been foisted when said political ad ban
was lifted by R.A. 9006.
From the foregoing, it does appear that the COMELEC
did not have any other basis for coming up with a new
manner of determining allowable time limits except its
own idea as to what should be the maximum number
of minutes based on its exercise of discretion as to
how to level the playing field. The same could be
encapsulized in the remark of the COMELEC
Chairman that "if the Constitution allows us to regulate
and then it gives us the prerogative to amplify then the
38
39
42
44
47
49
50
55
58
interpreted the law; verily, it legislated under its quasilegislative authority. The due observance of the
requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication
should not have been then ignored.
For failing to conduct prior hearing before coming up
with Resolution No. 9615, said Resolution, specifically
in regard to the new rule on aggregate airtime is
declared defective and ineffectual.
g. Resolution No. 9615 does not impose an
unreasonable burden on the broadcast industry
It is a basic postulate of due process, specifically in
relation to its substantive component, that any
governmental rule or regulation must be reasonable in
its operations and its impositions. Any restrictions, as
well as sanctions, must be reasonably related to the
purpose or objective of the government in a manner
that would not work unnecessary and unjustifiable
burdens on the citizenry. Petitioner GMA assails certain
requirements imposed on broadcast stations as
unreasonable. It explained:
5.40 Petitioner GMA currently operates and monitors
21 FM and AM radio stations nationwide and 8
originating television stations (including its main
transmitter in Quezon City) which are authorized to
dechain national programs for airing and insertion of
local content and advertisements.
5.41 In light of the New Rules wherein a candidate's
airtime minutes are applied on an aggregate basis and
considering that said Rules declare it unlawful in
Section 7( d) thereof for a radio, television station or
other mass media to sell or give for free airtime to a
candidate in excess of that allowed by law or by said
New Rules:
59
61
1awp++i1
63
66
67
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
On leave
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
**
***
****
*****
1
****
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERANBE
Associate Justice
On leave
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C ATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
*****
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Id at 429.
Id. at 430-432.
The pertinent portions of the Fair Election Act (R.A.
No. 9006) provide:
SECTION 6. Equal Access to Media Time and Space. All registered parties and bona fide candidates shall
have equal access to media time and space. The
following guidelines may be amplified on by the
COMELEC:
xxxx
6.2. (a) Each bona fide candidate or registered political
party for a nationally elective office shall be entitled to
not more than one hundred twenty (120) minutes of
television advertisement and one hundred eighty ( 180)
minutes of radio advertisement whether by purchase or
donation.
(b) Each bona fide candidate or registered political
party for a locally elective office shall be entitled to not
more than sixty (60) minutes of television
advertisement and ninety (90) minutes of radio
advertisement whether by purchase or donation; or
For this purpose, the COMELEC shall require any
broadcast station or entity to submit to the COMELEC
a copy of its broadcast logs and certificates of
performance for the review and verification of the
frequency, date, time and duration of advertisements
broadcast for any candidate or political party.
6.3. All mass media entities shall furnish the
COMELEC with a copy of all contracts for advertising,
promoting or opposing any political party or the
candidacy of any person for public office within five (5)
days after its signing. In every case, it shall be signed
by the donor, the candidate concerned or by the duly
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
67
68
69