10 - Soriano V Laguardia Digest

SORIANO vs.
LAGUARDIA
G.R. No. 164785. April 29, 2009
Facts:
1. Petitioner is a host of the program Ang Dating Daan aired on UNTV
37 and he made the ff. remarks:
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.
2. 2 days after, the respondents, before the MTRCB lodged complaints
against Soriano. The MTRCB sent Soriano a notice of the hearing.
After the hearing, the MTRCB issued an order preventively
suspending the showing of Dating Daan program for 20 days. This
suspension is in accordance with Sec 3(d) of PD 1986, the law
creating the MTRCB and in relation to its IRR. The MTRCB also
ordered to set the case for preliminary investigation.
3. In the Adm. Case No. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a decision finding
petitioner liable for his utterance and imposing upon him 3 months
suspicion from his program Ang Dating Daan
Contention of Soriano:
The order of preventive suspension imposed by the MTRCB was
issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
The IRR is invalid since it provides for the issuance of preventive
suspension orders
There was lack of due process since there was no hearing before the
court
The order was violative of freedom of religion and freedom of speech
and expression
The law (PD 1986) relied by the MTRCB has no sufficient standard
for its implementation resulting to undue delegation. Hence, the
MTRCB cannot provide for the penalties for violations of its
provisions
ISSUE:
Was the preventive suspension valid? YES
HELD:
Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be

administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasijudicial, or a mix of the five, as may be conferred by the Constitution
or by statute. They only have such powers or authority, which are
granted, delegated, expressly or impliedly by law.
In determining if the agency has certain powers, the inquiry should
be from the law itself. And once ascertained as existing, such
authority should be liberally construed.
MTRCB is expressly empowered by statute to regulate and
supervise television programs to obviate the exhibition or broadcast
of, among others, indecent or immoral materials and to impose
sanctions for violations and, corollarily, to prevent further violations
as it investigates
The power to issue a preventive suspension order by the MTRCB is
a necessary exercise of its power of regulation and supervision. And
such power is not only applicable to motion pictures and publicity
materials but also includes TV programs.
Soriano was not denied due process since the order by the MTRCB
was issued only after a hearing was held wherein Soriano himself
appeared before the Board. Hence, MTRCB duly appraised petition
of his having possibly violated the PD 1986 and of the administrative
complaints filed against him.
Administrative regulation or subordinate legislation to promote public
interest is a necessity in modern life. The grant of the rule-making
power to administrative agencies is a relaxation of the principle of
separation of powers and is an exception to the non-delegation of
legislative powers. Allowing the MTRCB some reasonable elbowroom in its operations and, in the exercise of its statutory disciplinary
functions, according it ample latitude in fixing, by way of an
appropriate issuance, administrative penalties with due regard for the
severity of the offense and attending mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, as the case may be, would be consistent with its
mandate to effectively and efficiently regulate the movie and
television industry.
As to petitioners contention that he was denied the equal protection of
law:
The equal protection clause demands that, all persons subject to
legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and
conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
In here, petitioner cannot place himself in the same shoes as the INC
ministers, who are not facing administrative complaints before the
MTRCB. Also, he has no proof that the said ministers, in their TV
programs, used language similar to that which he used on his own
which necessitated the MTRCBS disciplinary action. If the
immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner
remains temporarily gagged and is unable to answer his critics, this
does not become a deprivation of the equal protection guarantee.
The Court need not belabor the fact that the circumstances of
petitioner, as host of Ang Dating Daan, on one hand, and the INC
ministers, as hosts of Ang Tamang Daan, on the other, are, within the
purview of this case, simply too different to even consider whether or
not there is a prima facie indication of oppressive inequality.
As to petitioners contention that the words he uttered is a protected

religious speech:
The fact that he came out with his statements 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. His
statements constitute no intelligible defense or refutation of the
alleged lies being spread by a rival religious group. They simply
illustrate that petitioner had descended to the level of name-calling
and foul-language discourse.
Also, the TV program Ang Dating Daan is a A TV program rated G

or for general viewership reaches adults and children alike. What
may not be obscene speech to adults may be considered obscene
for children.
As to petitioners contention on freedom of speech:
As a standard of limitation on freedom of speech and press, the clear

and present danger test is not a magic incantation. It was originally
designed to determine the latitude which should be given to speech
that espouses anti-government action, or to have serious and
substantial deleterious consequences on the security and public
order of the community. The clear and present danger test does not
lend itself to a simplistic and all embracing interpretation applicable
to all utterances in all forums.
The assailed order penalized petitioner for past speech, not future
speeches in a TV program. Neither can petitioners virtual inability to
speak in his program during the period of suspension be plausibly
treated as prior restraint on future speech. For viewed in its proper
perspective, the suspension is in the nature of an intermediate
penalty for uttering an unprotected form of speech. In fine, the
suspension meted was simply part of the duties of the MTRCB in the
enforcement and administration of the law which it is tasked to
implement. It does not bar future speech of petitioner in other
television programs; it is a permissible subsequent administrative
sanction; it should not be confused with a prior restraint on speech.
Also, the State has a compelling interest to protect minors, against

offensive language in TV programs. The Constitution, no less, in fact
enjoins the State, as earlier indicated, to promote and protect the
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being of the
youth to better prepare them fulfill their role in the field of nationbuilding. In the same way, the State is mandated to support parents
in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral character. As such, the welfare of children and the States
mandate to protect and care for them, as parens patriae, constitute a
substantial and compelling government interest in regulating
petitioners utterances in TV broadcast as provided in PD 1986.
Note:
Although the Court upheld the power of the MTRCB to review and
impose sanctions for violation of PD 1986, its order to suspend
petitioner was modified.
The MTRCB may prohibit the broadcast of such television programs
or cancel permits for exhibition but it may not suspend television
personalities because this would be beyond its jurisdiction.
The MTRCB cannot extend its exercise of regulation beyond what
the law provides.
Hence, MTRCBs decision and order of suspension should cover
only the television program on which petitioner appeared and uttered
the offensive and obscene language.

10 - Soriano V Laguardia Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 - Soriano V Laguardia Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 - Soriano V Laguardia Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SORIANO vs.

Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be

As to petitioners contention that the words he uttered is a protected

Also, the TV program Ang Dating Daan is a A TV program rated G

As to petitioners contention on freedom of speech:

As a standard of limitation on freedom of speech and press, the clear

Also, the State has a compelling interest to protect minors, against

You might also like