Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009 Facts
Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009 Facts
Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009 Facts
FACTS:
1. In the evening of 10 Aug 2004, petitioner Eliseo Soriano, a 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.
2. Two 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
(Implementing Rules and Regulations. The MTRCB also ordered to set the case for preliminary
investigation.
3. In the Adm. Case No. 01-40, the MTRCB issued a decision finding the petitioner liable for his
utterance and imposing upon him 3 months suspension from his program “Ang Dating Daan.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not MTRCB has the power, granted by law, to suspend a program or a host.
HELD:
Yes, MTRCB has the implied and necessary power to suspend a program or a host.
To begin with, Section 3(d) of PD 1986 explicitly gives the MTRCB the power to supervise and regulate
the television broadcast of all television programs. Under Section 3(e) the MTRCB is authorized under
section 3(a) “to promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary or proper for the
implementation of [PD 1986].” Finally, under Section 3(k), the MTRCB is warranted “to exercise such
powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the purposes and
objectives of [PD 1986]”
Clearly, the law intends to give the MTRCB all the muscle to carry out and enforce the law effectively. In
consonance with this legislative intent, the law uphold the implied and necessary power of the MTRCB
to order the suspension of a program or a host thereof in case of violation of PD 1968 and rules and
regulations that implement it.
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 MTRC is a necessary exercise of its power of
regulation and supervision. And such power is not only applicable to motion pictures and publicly
materials but also includes TV programs.
Therefore, in case of violation of PD 1968 and its implementing rules and regulations, it is within the
authority of the MTRCB to impose the administrative penalty of suspension to the erring broadcaster. A
contrary stance will emasculate the MTRCB and render illusory its supervisory and regulatory powers,
make meaningless the public trustee character of broadcasting and afford no remedy to the infringed
fundamental rights of viewers.