G.R. No. 164785 April 29, 2009 & G.R. No. 165636 April 29, 2009Eliseo F. Soriano v Ma. Consoliza P. Laguardia, in her capacity as Chairperson of MTRCB, et.al.

FACTS:

1In a preliminary conference, MTRCB initially filed a 20-day suspension on Soriano following the affidavit-complaints by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo against the remarks made by Soriano in his show DatingDaan:

Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;

Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumaganalang 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 . 1

1Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration to the MTRCB and a petition for certiorari and prohibition to SC to nullify said preventive suspension. MTRCB, in reviewing the case and in accordance with Implementing Rulesand Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure, found Soriano liable for his act and imposed a penalty of a 3-month suspension from his program.

2Soriano then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief.

ISSUES and RATIO:

Petitioner argues: SC refutes:(1) that Sec. 3 of PD On freedom of religion:1986 unduly infringes onthe constitutional The petitioner’s statements did not convey any particular religious belief, and nothingguarantee of freedom of furthered his avowed evangelical mission.religion, speech, andexpression. Merely being in a bible exposition program does not automatically entail that

statements made are of a religious discourse.

“…he was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by any religiousconviction.”

On freedom of expression:

The freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights,is, however, not absolute. It may be regulated to some extent to serve importantpublic interests, some forms of speech not being protected. As has been held, thelimits of the freedom of expression are reached when the expression touches uponmatters of essentially private concern.

On freedom of speech:

Soriano’s statements can be classified somewhat as unprotected speech or lowvalue expression - libelous statements, obscenity or pornography, false ormisleading advertisement, insulting or "fighting words", i.e., those which by theirvery utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace andexpression endangering national security.

Soriano v Laguardia

jrlc20121

Although his statements cannot be classified obscene in its strict definition, but mere

indecent utterances as they can be viewed as figures of speech or merely a play onwords, the problem lies in that they were uttered in a TV program that is rated "G"or for general viewership, and in a time slot that would likely reach even the eyesand ears of children.

In this sense, Soriano’s utterances are obscene and not entitled to protection underthe umbrella of freedom of speech.

Further, if there is conflict, the concept of “balancing interests” should beundertaken. Which, of the two interests, demand the greater protection under theparticular circumstances presented? In this case, the children need greaterprotection.

(2) that Sec. 3 of PD1986 unduly infringes on What the MTRCB did was permissible restriction on these grounds:the constitutionalguarantee of due process 1. indecent speech was made via television which is a "pervasive medium"of law and equal 2. the broadcast was aired at a time that is likely to have children in the audienceprotection under the law

Government regulations through the MTRCB became "a necessary evil" with the

(a) Petitioner theorizes government taking the role of assigning bandwidth to individual broadcasters.

that the three (3)-monthsuspension is either prior The three-month suspension is not prior restraint because a permit was alreadyrestraint or subsequent issued for the program. It is in the form of permissible administrative sanction

punishment that, or subsequent punishment for the offensive and obscene remarks. It sought tohowever, includes prior penalize and not bar the petitioner from future speech in other TV programs.

restraint, albeitindirectly.

(3) that PD 1986 is not “As we held in Angara v. Electoral Commission, when a general grant of power iscomplete in itself and conferred or a duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise ofdoes not provide for a one or the performance of the other is also conferred by necessary implication.”sufficient standard for itsimplementation thereby Administrative regulations or "subordinate legislation" calculated to promote theresulting in an undue public interest are necessary because of "the growing complexity of modern life, thedelegation of multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increasedlegislative power by difficulty of administering the law."reason that it does notprovide for the penalties On range of imposable penalties:for violations of itsprovisions The power to deny or cancel a permit for the exhibition of a TV program or

broadcast necessarily includes within its range the lesser power to suspend.

However, PD 1986 only applies to the cancellation and suspension of programs andnot the people in it.

HELD

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of limiting the 3-month suspension to the program Ang DatingDaan

Soriano vLaguardiajrlc2012 2