Soriano vs.

La Guardia

FACTS:
On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on
UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against INC. Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost
identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all
members of the Iglesiani Cristo (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent
Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioner’s remark, was then a minister of INC and a
regular host of the TV program AngTamangDaan. The remarks stated: “Lehitimonganak ng demonyo;
sinungaling; Gagokatalaga Michael, masaholka pa saputangbabae o di ba. Yung
putangbabaeanggumaganalangdoonyungibaba, [dito] kay Michael anggumaganaangitaas, o di ba! O, masahol
pa saputangbabaeyan. Sabi ng lolakomasahol pa saputangbabaeyan. Sobraangkasinungalingan ng
mgademonyongito.”

ISSUE:
Are Soriano’s statements during the televised “Ang Dating Daan” part of the religious discourse and
within the protection of Section 5, Art.III?

HELD:
No. The petitioner’s statements did not convey any particular religious belief, and nothingfurthered his
avowed evangelical mission. 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 religious conviction.”
Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, therefore, and considering the adverse effect of
petitioner’s utterances on the viewers’ fundamental rights as well as petitioner’s clear violation of his duty as a
public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from appearing in Ang Dating Daan for three months.
Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted that petitioner’s suspension was an undue curtailment of his
right to free speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside from the reasons given
above (re the paramountcy of viewers rights, the public trusteeship character of a broadcaster’s role and the
power of the State to regulate broadcast media), a requirement that indecent language be avoided has its primary
effect on the form, rather than the content, of serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that
cannot be expressed by the use of less offensive language.

http://karissafaye.blogspot.com/2009/12/digests-article-iii-sections-5-8.html
G.R. No. 164785 April 29, 2009 & G.R. No. 165636 April 29, 2009
Eliseo F. Soriano v Ma.Consoliza P. Laguardia, in her capacity as Chairperson of MTRCB, et.al.

FACTS:
In a preliminary conference, MTRCB initially filed a 20-day suspension on Soriano following the
affidavit-complaints by members of the Iglesiani Cristo against the remarks made by Soriano in his
showDatingDaan:

“Lehitimonganak ng demonyo; sinungaling;Gagokatalaga Michael, masaholka pa saputangbabae o di ba. Yung

putangbabaeanggumaganalangdoonyungibaba, [dito] kay Michael anggumaganaangitaas, o di ba! O, masahol
pa saputangbabaeyan. Sabi ng lolakomasahol pa saputangbabaeyan. Sobraangkasinungalingan ng
mgademonyongito.”

Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration to the MTRCB and a petition for certiorari and prohibition to
SC tonullify 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 liablefor his act and imposed a penalty of a3-month suspension from his program.
Soriano then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief.

On freedom of religion:
The petitioner’s statements did not convey any particular religious belief, and nothing
furthered his avowed evangelical mission.Merely being in a bible exposition program does not automatically
entail thatstatements 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 asunprotected speech or lowvalue expression- libellous
statements, obscenity or pornography, false or misleading advertisement, insulting or "fighting words", i.e.,
those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace and expression
endangering national security.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100594066/Soriano-v-Laguardia
SORIANO VS LA GUARDIAG.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009

FACTSThe Minister of INC felt directly alluded by an offending remark made by Soriano in one of his episodein his
regular program aired on UNTV 37, “Ang Dating Daan.” This ensued 8 private complainants whoare members of INC to
file an affidavit-complaint against herein petition (Soriano) before the MTRCB.Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a
notice of the hearing in relation to the alleged use of some cusswords in the said episode. After a preliminary conference
in which petitioner appeared, the MTRCBordered preventive suspension of his 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
2004Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure. The
petitioner sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension order, praying thatLaguardia and two other members of
the adjudication board recuse themselves from hearing the case,but withdrew the same two days after, and, instead
filed with the SC of a petition for certiorari andprohibition to nullify the preventive suspension order thus issued.
Meanwhile, in the administrative case filed against the respondent with the MTRCB, it was held that therespondent is
liable for his utterances and thereby imposing on him a penalty of three (3) monthssuspension from said program. He
then filed petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief on the ground that the preventive
suspension imposed against him and the relevant IRRprovision authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD 1986 does not
expressly authorize the MTRCB toissue preventive suspension.ISSUE:WHETHER OR NOT THE MTRCB IS ENTITLED TO
ISSUE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSIONRULINGYES. Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be
administrative, investigatory,regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as may be conferred by
theConstitution or by statute. They have in fine only such powers or authority as are granted or delegated,expressly or
impliedly, by law. And in determining whether an agency has certain powers, the inquiryshould be from the law itself.
But once ascertained as existing, the authority given should be liberallyconstrued. The issuance of a preventive
suspension comes well within the scope of the MTRCB’s authority andfunctions expressly set forth in PD 1986, more
particularly under its Sec. 3(d), which empowers theMTRCB to “supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits
for the x xx exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials, to
the end thatno such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be objectionable
inaccordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be x xx exhibited and/or broadcast by television.” The power to issue
preventive suspension forms part of the MTRCB’s express regulatory andsupervisory statutory mandate and its
investigatory and disciplinary authority subsumed in or impliedfrom such mandate. Any other construal would render its
power to regulate, supervise, or disciplineillusory.

Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself, but merely a preliminary step in anadministrative investigation

. And the power to discipline and impose penalties, if granted, carries withit the power to investigate administrative
complaints and, during such investigation, to preventivelysuspend the person subject of the complaint. The mere
absence of a provision on preventive suspension in PD 1986 would not work to deprive theMTRCB a basic disciplinary
tool, such as preventive suspension. It is expressly empowered by statuteto 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.Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the
aforequoted

Sec. 3 of the IRR neither amended PD 1986 nor extended the effect of the law. Neither did the MTRCB, by imposing the
assailed preventivesuspension, outrun its authority under the law. The preventive suspension was actually done
infurtherance of the law, imposed pursuant to the MTRCB’s duty of regulating or supervisingtelevision programs,
pending a determination of whether or not there has actually been aviolation. In the final analysis, Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of
the 2004 IRR merely formalized a power which PD 1986 bestowed, albeit impliedly, on MTRCB.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105717965/Soriano-vs-La-Guardia
Brother Eli vs. Laguardia

Ang Dating Daan host Eliseo S. Soriano uttered the following statements in his TV program against Michael Sandoval
(Iglesiani Cristo’s minister and regular host of the TV program AngTamangDaan):

Lehitimonganak ng demonyo[!] Sinungaling [!]

Gagokatalaga[,] Michael[!] [M]asaholka pa saputangbabae[,] o di ba[?] [‘]Yung putangbabae[,] anggumaganalangdoon[,]

[‘]yungibaba, ditokay Michael[,] anggumaganaangitaas, o di ba? O, masahol pa saputangbabae [‘]yan.
Sobraangkasinungalingan ng mgademonyongito.

As a result, The MTRCB initially slapped Soriano’s Ang Dating Daan, which was earlier given a “G” rating for general
viewership, with a 20-day preventive suspension after a preliminary conference. Later, in a decision, it found him liable
for his utterances, and was imposed a three-month suspension from his TV program Ang Dating Daan. Soriano
challenged the order of the MTRCB.

HELD:

The SC ruled that “Soriano’s statement can be treated as obscene, at least with respect to the average child,” and thus
his utterances cannot be considered as protected speech. Citing decisions from the US Supreme Court, the High Court
said that the analysis should be “context based” and found the utterances to be obscene after considering the use of
television broadcasting as a medium, the time of the show, and the “G” rating of the show, which are all factors that
made the utterances susceptible to children viewers. The Court emphasized on how the uttered words could be easily
understood by a child literally rather than in the context that they were used.”

The SC also said “that the suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a “form of permissible administrative sanction or
subsequent punishment.” In affirming the power of the MTRCB to issue an order of suspension, the majority said that “it
is a sanction that the MTRCB may validly impose under its charter without running afoul of the free speech clause.” visit
fellester.blogspot.com The Court said that the suspension “is not a prior restraint on the right of petitioner to continue
with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as a permit was already issued to him by MTRCB,” rather, it was a sanction for
“the indecent contents of his utterances in a “G” rated TV program.” (Soriano v. Laguardia; GR No. 165636, April 29,
2009)

Dissenting Opinion:
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in a separate dissenting opinion, said that a single government action could be both a
penalty and a prior restraint. The Chief Magistrate pointed out that the three month suspension takes such form
because it also acts as a restraint to petitioner’s future speech and thus deserves a higher scrutiny than the “context
based” approach that the majority applied. In voting to grant Soriano’s petition, the Chief Justice said that “in the
absence of proof and reason, he [Soriano] should not be penalized with a three-month suspension that works as a prior
restraint on his speech.”

http://fellester.blogspot.com/2009/06/brother-eli-vs-laguardia.html
Background:

MTRCB suspended Bro. Soriano’s television broadcasts after the same religious group, the Iglesiani Cristo (INC), had filed
practically the same complaints about the use of harsh words by Bro. Soriano or alleged “bad words” and defamation
against the INC. Soriano contested the suspensions at the high court, complaining that the MTRCB violated his
constitutional right to free religion, speech, and expression.

“The statements were merely in response to the detestable conduct of the ministers of the Iglesiani Cristo hosting a
television program entitled, AngTamangDaan,” he said.

In taking Ang Dating Daan off the air, the MTRCB cited Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1986, granting the Board the
power to screen, review, and examine all movie and TV programs and to delete materials that it deems morally
offensive.

But Soriano countered that Section 3c of PD 1986 “is unconstitutional in so far as it sanctions the censorship of religious
TV programs as a form of subsequent punishment.” [SOURCE: THE OLD PATH MAGAZINE. Vol. 1 No. 3 | 2005.
http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2.htm%5D

After four years, this report came out -

The Supreme Court en banc, in an 11-4 vote, upheld the three-month suspension imposed by the Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board on the TV program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, after its host, petitioner Eliseo S.
Soriano, was found to have uttered offensive and obscene remarks during its August 10, 2004 broadcast.

The majority, in a consolidated decision, speaking through Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., held that the suspension is
not a prior restraint, but rather a “form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment.” In affirming
the power of the MTRCB to issue an order of suspension, the majority said that “it is a sanction that the MTRCB may
validly impose under its charter without running afoul of the free speech clause.” [Source: Erika T. Dy. SC Upholds
MTRCB Suspension of Ang Dating Daan. Supreme Court of the Philippines. April 30, 2009.]

A researcher from Newsbreak had provided a capsule report of the voting of the High Court on this issue as follows –

How the Supreme Court decided on

Soriano v. Laguardia; Soriano v. MTRCB

(on the suspension of “Dating Daan” preacher for uttering profanities on air against the Iglesiani Cristo)
Why is it important: The case raised questions on what constitutes prior restraint.

The SC upheld the 3-month suspension of Dating Daan host Eliseo Soriano, who uttered profanities against the religious
sect Iglesiani Cristo on his show.

The Movie and Television Review Classification Board first slapped Soriano with a 20-day preventive suspension upon
preliminary probe. It then issued a 3-month suspension against Soriano after he was found guilty of expressing
obscenities on air.

The majority ruled that it is within the powers of the MTRCB to issue a preventive suspension.

However, those who dissented, which included Chief Justice Reynato Puno, said that the sanction will extend to
Soriano’s future speech, and thus would constitute prior restraint.

How they voted: De Castro concurred with the decision. Carpio and Carpio-Morales dissented. Brion and Corona voted
to dismiss the petition. [Research by Purple S. Romero. Newsbreak.com]

Here come now the excerpts from Law Monitor of the Supreme Court showing the dissenting opinions of Justice
Roberto A. Abad and Justice Antonio T. Carpio.
Saturday, June 5, 2010

Supreme Court Decisions and Resolutions March 2010

G.R. No. 164785/G.R. No. 165636. March 15, 2010

Eliseo F. Soriano Vs. Ma. Consoliza P. Laguardia, etc. et al./Eliseo F. Soriano Vs. Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board, et al.

Dissenting Opinion

J. Carpio, J. Abad

http://kotawinters.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/what-the-dissenting-judges-wrote-bro-eliseo-soriano-vs-laguardia-
mtrcb-on-speech/
 Soriano vs. La Guardia

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

Facts:

On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on

UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against INC. Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost

identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all

members of the Iglesiani Cristo (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent

Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioner’s remark, was then a minister of INC and a

regular host of the TV program AngTamangDaan.

Issue:
Whether or not Soriano’s statements during the televised “Ang Dating Daan” part of the religious

discourse and within the protection of Section 5, Art.III.

Held:

No. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, therefore, and considering the adverse effect of

petitioner’s utterances on the viewers’ fundamental rights as well as petitioner’s clear violation of his duty as a

public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from appearing in Ang Dating Daan for three months.

Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted that petitioner’s suspension was an undue curtailment of his right to

free speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside from the reasons given above (re the

paramount of viewers rights, the public trusteeship character of a broadcaster’s role and the power of the State

to regulate broadcast media), a requirement that indecent language be avoided has its primary effect on the

form, rather than the content, of serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be

expressed by the use of less offensive language.

http://yourfutureattorney.blogspot.com/2012/12/soriano-vs-la-guardia.html
Soriano vs. La Guardia