Title
Soriano vs. Laguardia
Case
G.R. No. 164785
Decision Date
Apr 29, 2009
Eliseo Soriano’s derogatory TV remarks against an INC minister prompted MTRCB’s preventive suspension. Supreme Court upheld MTRCB’s authority, ruling suspensions were regulatory, not unconstitutional prior restraint, preserving free speech limits.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164785)

Facts:

  • Background
    • Eliseo F. Soriano hosted the religious TV program *Ang Dating Daan* on UNTV 37, rated “G” for general audiences.
    • On August 10, 2004, during an episode aired at around 10:00 p.m., Soriano uttered profane and insulting remarks toward a rival minister, including the phrases “lehitimong anak ng demonyo,” “gago ka talaga,” and repeated references to “putang babae.”
  • MTRCB Proceedings
    • Two days later, Jessie L. Galapon and others (all Iglesia ni Cristo members) lodged separate but similar complaints with the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).
    • On August 16, 2004, after a preliminary conference, the MTRCB issued a preventive suspension of *Ang Dating Daan* for 20 days and set a preliminary investigation in accordance with P.D. 1986, its IRR, and the MTRCB Rules of Procedure.
    • Soriano sought—but then withdrew—a motion for reconsideration and filed two Rule 65 petitions in the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 164785 and 165636) to nullify the suspension and, later, the MTRCB’s three-month suspension decision issued on September 27, 2004.

Issues:

  • G.R. No. 164785 (Preventive Suspension Order)
    • Whether P.D. 1986 and its IRR validly authorize preventive suspension orders.
    • Whether Soriano was deprived of due process and equal protection.
    • Whether the order violated freedom of religion, speech, and expression.
  • G.R. No. 165636 (Three-Month Program Suspension)
    • Whether Section 3(c) of P.D. 1986 is unconstitutional as an undue infringement on freedom of religion, speech, and expression.
    • Whether the implementing rules, procedures, and MTRCB decision denying due process and equal protection.
    • Whether P.D. 1986 unduly delegated legislative power by failing to specify penalties.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.