Case Name: Soriano v. Laguardia, 605 Phil.

43 (2009)
G.R. No./Docket No.: G.R. No. 164785 and G.R. No. 165636
Date of Decision: April 29, 2009
Ponente: J. Velasco

1. What is the factual background of the case? (no more than 5 sentences; no procedural matters)

• In this case, the petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano would like to nullify and set aside the order and
decision of MTRCB in relation to their show being suspended.
• Here, the petitioner was the host of the program Ang Dating Daan which aired on UNTV and
aired “putang babae”
• This then led the petitioner to file 2 cases which contends the following:
§ G.R. No. 164785: Petitioner would like to nullify the order of preventive
suspension promulgated by the MTRCB
§ G.R. No. 165636: Petitioner would like to render Section 3 (c) of PD 1986 as
unconstitutional.

2. What was the law / measure / act being challenged?

• The law being challenged here is the constitutionality of Section 3 (c) ) of PD 1986

Section 3. Powers and Functions. — The BOARD shall have the following functions, powers and
duties

To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the . . . production,
. . . exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and
publicity materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in the judgment of the board
applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable for being
immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic
of the Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of
violence or of wrong or crime such as but not limited to:

Note: PD 1986 reveals the possession by the agency of the authority, albeit impliedly, to issue the
challenged order of preventive suspension and this authority stems naturally from, and is
necessary for the exercise of, its power of regulation and supervision.

3. What was it (l/m/a) seeking to achieve / address?

• The petitioners in this case seeks to address Section 3 (c) of PD 1986 infringes their constitutional
guarantee of Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Expression as it partakes to of the nature of a
subsequent punishment and prior restraints.

4. What was the fundamental state power involved (if any)?

• Police Power

5. Was there compliance with requisites of judicial review?

• None

6. What was the ruling of the court? (Note: in 1 sentence)

• Here, the court affirmed with modifications of limiting the suspension to the program Ang
Dating Daan.
7. What was the fundamental right/s involved and how did the Court discuss/expound such
right?

• In this case, the fundamental right involved under G.R. No. 165636 is the right of freedom of
speech and expression
• The petitioner presented several arguments in the case on why such right was not violated:

1. The petitioner contended that Sec. 3 (c) violates the right of freedom of speech and
expression

Sec. 4, Art. III of the Constitution, which reads: No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.

Here, the court is not persuaded because It is settled that expressions by means of
newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures come within the broad protection of
the free speech and expression clause.

Prior restraint means official government restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. 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 important public interests, some
forms of speech not being protected. As has been held, the limits of the freedom of
expression are reached when the expression touches upon matters of essentially private
concern

2. Petitioner asserts that his utterance in question is a protected form of speech

The Court rules otherwise. It has been established in this jurisdiction that unprotected
speech or low-value expression refers to libelous statements, obscenity or pornography,
false or misleading advertisement, insulting or "fighting words"

The Court finds that petitioner's statement can be treated as obscene, at least with
respect to the average child. Hence, it is, in that context, unprotected speech.

They can be viewed as figures of speech or merely a play on words. In the context they
were used, they may not appeal to the prurient interests of an adult. The problem with
the challenged statements is 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 eyes and ears
of children.
 The term "putang babae" means "a female prostitute", a term wholly inappropriate for
children, who could look it up in a dictionary and just get the literal meaning, missing
the context within which it was used. P

Even if we concede that petitioner's remarks are not obscene but merely indecent speech,
still the Court rules that petitioner cannot avail himself of the constitutional protection
of free speech.

3. Petitioner's invocation of the clear and present danger doctrine

According to the SC, petitioner's invocation of the clear and present danger doctrine,
arguably the most permissive of speech tests, would not avail him any relief, for the
application of said test is uncalled for under the premises. The doctrine, 2rst formulated
by Justice Holmes, accords protection for utterances so that the printed or spoken words
may not be subject to prior restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression CD
Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com creates a clear and present danger of
bringing about a substantial evil which the government has the power to prohibit.

Under the doctrine, freedom of speech and of press is susceptible of restriction when
and only when necessary to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the
government may lawfully protect. As it were, said doctrine evolved in the context of
prosecutions for rebellion and other crimes involving the overthrow of government.

As we observed in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation, 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 court instead used another test called “Balancing of Interests Test”. In the case of
Gonzalez v. COMELEC:

When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation
results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is
to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater protection
under the particular circumstances presented. . . . We must, therefore, undertake the
"delicate and difficult task . . . to weigh the circumstances and to appraise the
substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment
of rights . . . . In enunciating standard premised on a judicial balancing of the conflicting
social values and individual interests competing for ascendancy in legislation which
restricts expression, the court in Douds laid the basis for what has been called the
"balancing-of-interests" test which has found application in more recent decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court. Briefly stated, the "balancing" test requires a court to take conscious
and detailed consideration o

In the case at bar, petitioner used indecent and obscene language and a three (3)-month
suspension was slapped on him for breach of MTRCB rules. In this setting, the assertion
 by petitioner of his enjoyment of his freedom of speech is ranged against the duty of the
government to protect and promote the development and welfare of the youth

8. What was the fundamental guarantee/s involved and how did the Court discuss/expound
such right?

• The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression

Sec. 4, Art. III of the Constitution, which reads: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievance.

In the oft-quoted expression of Justice Holmes, the constitutional guarantee "obviously was not
intended to give immunity for every possible use of language".

From Lucas v. Royo comes this line: "[T]he freedom to express one's sentiments and belief does
not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another. Any sentiments
must be expressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others".

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, "there are certain well-de2ned and narrowly limited
classes of speech that are harmful, the prevention and punishment of which has never been
thought to raise any Constitutional problems". In net effect, some forms of speech are not
protected by the Constitution, meaning that restrictions on unprotected speech may be decreed
without running afoul of the freedom of speech clause.

A speech would fall under the unprotected type if the utterances involved are "no essential part
of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit
that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality"

Being of little or no value, there is, in dealing with or regulating them, no imperative call for the
application of the clear and present danger rule or the balancing-of-interest test, they being
essentially modes of weighing competing values, or, with like effect, determining which of the
clashing interests should be advanced.

9. What do you think is the most important passage and why? (maximum of 5 sentences)

“Free speech is a preferred right which has to be zealously guarded. Nonetheless, it is not absolute but
limited by equally fundamental freedoms enjoyed by other members of society. It is also circumscribed
by the basic principle of all human relations: every person must in the exercise of his rights and
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.”
(Separate Opinion of J. Corona)
 10. Which modality of constitutional argumentation did the Justices use?

• Textual – The SC applied the Right of Freedom of speech and expression its plain and ordinary
meaning. Moreover, the case also defined Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment
• Doctrinal – because the Court cited several cases to further understand the application of the
freedom of speech and expression and when it can be out of line
1. Lucas v. Royo
2. Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
3. Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak

Notes: (Doctrines discussed; Important Decisions/Opinions, if there’s any)

1. Petitioner's offensive and indecent language can be subjected to prior restraint. Petitioner theorizes
that the three (3)-month suspension is either prior restraint or subsequent punishment that,
however, includes prior restraint, albeit indirectly.

After a review of the facts, the Court 2nds that what MTRCB imposed on petitioner is an
administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for his offensive and obscene language in Ang
Dating Daan.

To clarify, statutes imposing prior restraints on speech are generally illegal and presumed
unconstitutional breaches of the freedom of speech. The exceptions to prior restraint are movies,
television, and radio broadcast censorship in view of its access to numerous people, including the
young who must be insulated from the prejudicial effects of unprotected speech. PD 1986 was
passed creating the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (now MTRCB) and which
requires prior permit or license before showing a motion picture or broadcasting a TV program.
The Board can classify movies and television programs and can cancel permits for exhibition of
2lms or television broadcast.

The three (3) months suspension in this case 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
for such broadcast. Rather, the suspension is in the form of permissible administrative sanction or
subsequent punishment for the offensive and obscene remarks he uttered on the evening of August
10, 2004 in his television program, Ang Dating Daan.