10 - Soriano v Laguardia digest .docx

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 petitioner’s 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 MTRCB’S 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 State’s mandate to protect and care for them, as parens patriae, constitute a substantial and compelling government interest in regulating petitioner’s 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, MTRCB’s decision and order of suspension should cover only the television program on which petitioner appeared and uttered the offensive and obscene language.