Page |1
Soriano v Laguardia
587 SCRA 79 (2009)
Velasco, Jr. J.:
FACTS:
In the evening of 10 Aug 2004, petitioner Eliseo Soriano as host of the
program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made the following remarks
directed towards private respondent Michael Sandoval, a minister of
the Iglesia ni Cristo and a host of the program Ang Tamang 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. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang
babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.
Two days after, complaints were lodged by Jessie Galapon and other
private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo before the
MTRCB. On 16 Aug 2004, the MTRCB issued an order preventively
suspending Ang Dating Daan for 20 days in accordance with Sec 3(d) of PD
1986.
Petitioner sought for reconsideration praying that respondent
Chairperson Consoliza Laguardia recuse themselves from hearing the case
but later withdrew his motion followed by the filing for certiorari and
prohibition to nullify the preventive suspension order.
On 27 Sept 2004, the MTRCB issued a decision imposing 3 months
suspension from the program Ang Dating Daan.
ISSUES:
• W/N MTRCB is authorized under PD 1986 to issue preventive
suspension.
• W/N petitioner was deprived of due process and equal protection
for lack of due hearing in the case.
• W/N petitioner’s utterance was religious speech protected by
religious freedom.
• W/N petitioner’s utterance was protected by freedom of speech
and expression.
HELD:
1.) Yes. The Court ruled that administrative agencies have powers
and functions which may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi-
legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as conferred by the
Constitution or the law. The authority given should be liberally
construed. A perusal of the PD 1986 reveal the possession of authority to
issue preventive suspension as found in Sec 3(d), “To supervise, regulate,
and grant, deny or cancel… exhibition, and/or television broadcast… as are
determined by the BOARD to be objectionable…” Any other construal
would render its power to regulate, supervise, or discipline illusory.
Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself, being merely a preliminary
step in an administrative investigation. And the power to discipline and
impose penalties, if granted, carries with it the power to investigate
administrative complaints and, during such investigation, to preventively
suspend the person subject of the complaint.
Moreover, the assailed Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) issued by
MTRCB in pursuant to PD 1986 merely formalizes the power bestowed by
said statute. The IRR provision on preventive suspension is applicable not
only to motion pictures and publicity materials but only beyond motion
pictures. The MTRCB would regretfully be rendered ineffective should it be
subject to the restrictions petitioner envisages.
2.) No. The Court ruled that since MTRCB handed out the assailed order in
response to a written notice after petitioner appeared before that Board for
a hearing on private respondents complaint, no violation of the guarantee
was made. Under Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the IRR of PD 1986, preventive
suspension shall issue any time during the pendency of the case. In this
particular case, it was done after MTRCB duly apprised petitioner of his
having possibly violated PD 1986 and of administrative complaints that had
 Page |2

been filed against him for such violation. At any event, that preventive as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly
suspension can validly be meted out even without a hearing outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Neither the guarantee of equal protection was denied. Petitioner argues The Petitioner’s statement can be treated as obscene, at least with respect
that he was unable to answer the criticisms coming from the INC to the average child, and thus his utterances cannot be considered as
ministers. The equal protection clause demands that all persons subject to protected speech. Citing decisions from the US Supreme Court, the Court
legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions said that the analysis should be context based and found the utterances to
both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. The Court ruled that be obscene after considering the use of television broadcasting as a
petitioner cannot, under the premises, place himself in the same shoes as medium, the time of the show, and the “G” rating of the show, which are all
the INC ministers, who, for one, are not facing administrative complaints factors that made the utterances susceptible to children viewers. The Court
before the MTRCB. For another, he offers no proof to such allegations. emphasized on how the uttered words could be easily understood by a child
literally rather than in the context that they were used.
3.) No. The Court ruled that there is nothing in petitioner’s statements
subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious belief, nothing
furthering his avowed evangelical mission. 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. Even petitioners attempts to place his words in context
show that he was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by
any religious conviction.

4.) No. The Court held that be it in the form of prior restraint, e.g., judicial
injunction against publication or threat of cancellation of license/franchise,
or subsequent liability, whether in libel and damage suits, prosecution for
sedition, or contempt proceedings, are anathema to the freedom of
expression. Prior restraint means official government restrictions on the
press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination. The freedom of speech may be regulated to serve important
public interests and it may not be invoked when the expression touches
upon matters of essentially private concern. The freedom to express ones
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. 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