G.R. No. 164785 April 29, 2009 & G.R. No.

165636 April 29, 2009

Eliseo F. Soriano v a. !onsoli"a #. $a%&ar'ia, in (er )apa)i*+ as !(airperson o, -R!., e*.al.
FA!-S/
1In a preliminary conference, MTRCB initially filed a 20-day suspension on Soriano following the affidait-
complaints !y mem!ers of the Iglesia ni Cristo against the remar"s made !y Soriano in his show Dating
Daan#
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. abi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. ob!a ang kasinungalingan ng
mga demonyong ito $
%
1Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration to the MTRCB and a petition for certiorari and prohi!ition to SC to
nullify said preentie suspension$ MTRCB, in reiewing the case and in accordance with Implementing Rules
and Regulations &IRR' of () %*+, and Sec$ -, Rule .II of the MTRCB Rules of (rocedure, found Soriano
lia!le for his act and imposed a penalty of a 301on*( s&spension ,ro1 (is pro%ra1.
2Soriano then filed this petition for certiorari and prohi!ition with prayer for in/unctie relief$
2SS3ES an' RA-24/
#e*i*ioner ar%&es/ S! re,&*es/
&%' that Sec$ 0 of () 4n ,ree'o1 o, reli%ion/
%*+, unduly infringes on
the constitutional
The petitioner1s statements did not coney any particular religious !elief, and nothing
guarantee of freedom of furthered his aowed eangelical mission$
religion, speech, and
e2pression$
Merely !eing in a !i!le e2position program does not automatically entail that
statements made are of a religious discourse$
34he was moed !y anger and the need to see" retri!ution, not !y any religious
coniction$5
4n ,ree'o1 o, e5pression/
The freedom of e2pression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights,
is, howeer, not a!solute$ It may !e regulated to some e2tent to sere important
pu!lic interests, some forms of speech not !eing protected$ 6s has !een held, the
limits of the freedom of e2pression are reached when the e2pression touches upon
matters of essentially priate concern$
4n ,ree'o1 o, spee)(/
Soriano1s statements can !e classified somewhat as &npro*e)*e' spee)( or lo6
val&e e5pression - li!elous statements, o!scenity or pornography, false or
misleading adertisement, insulting or 7fighting words7, i$e$, those which !y their
ery utterance inflict in/ury or tend to incite an immediate !reach of peace and
e2pression endangering national security$
Soriano v
Laguardia
jrlc2012
1
6lthough his statements cannot !e classified o!scene in its strict definition, !ut mere
indecent utterances as they can !e iewed as figures of speech or merely a play on
words, the pro!lem lies in that they were uttered in a T. program that is rated 787
or for general iewership, and in a time slot that would li"ely reach een the eyes
and ears of children$
In this sense, Soriano1s utterances are o!scene and not entitled to protection under
the um!rella of freedom of speech$
9urther, if there is conflict, the concept of 78alan)in% in*eres*s5 should !e
underta"en$ :hich, of the two interests, demand the greater protection under the
particular circumstances presented; In this case, the children need greater
protection$
&2' that Sec$ 0 of ()
%*+, unduly infringes on :hat the MTRCB did was per1issi8le res*ri)*ion on these grounds#
the constitutional
guarantee of due process %$ indecent speech was made ia teleision which is a 7perasie medium7
of law and e<ual 2$ the !roadcast was aired at a time that is li"ely to hae children in the audience
protection under the law
8oernment regulations through the MTRCB !ecame 7a necessary eil7 with the
&a' (etitioner theori=es
goernment ta"ing the role of assigning !andwidth to indiidual !roadcasters$
that the three &0'-month
suspension is either prior The three-month suspension is not prior restraint !ecause a permit was already
restraint or su!se<uent
issued for the program$ It is in the form of per1issi8le a'1inis*ra*ive san)*ion
punishment that, or s&8se9&en* p&nis(1en* for the offensie and o!scene remar"s$ It sought to
howeer, includes prior
penali"e an' no* 8ar *(e pe*i*ioner from future speech in other T. programs$
restraint, al!eit
indirectly$
&0' that () %*+, is not 36s we held in 6ngara $ >lectoral Commission, when a general grant of power is
complete in itself and conferred or a duty en/oined, eery particular power necessary for the e2ercise of
does not proide for a one or the performance of the other is also conferred !y necessary implication$5
sufficient standard for its
implementation there!y 6dministratie regulations or 7su!ordinate legislation7 calculated to promote the
resulting in an &n'&e pu!lic interest are necessary !ecause of 7the growing comple2ity of modern life, the
'ele%a*ion o, multiplication of the su!/ects of goernmental regulations, and the increased
le%isla*ive po6er !y difficulty of administering the law$7
reason that it does not
proide for the penalties 4n ran%e o, i1posa8le penal*ies/
for iolations of its
proisions The po6er *o 'en+ or )an)el a per1i* for the e2hi!ition of a T. program or
!roadcast necessarily in)l&'es 6i*(in i*s ran%e *(e lesser po6er *o s&spen'.
?oweer, () %*+, only applies to the cancellation and suspension of programs and
no* *(e people in i*.
:E$;
@A)8M>BT 699IRM>) with the MC)I9IC6TICB of limiting the 0-month suspension to the program "ng Dating
Daan
Soriano v
Laguardia
jrlc2012 2