Case Digest (G.R. No. 164785)
Facts:
Eliseo F. Soriano v. Ma. Consoliza P. Laguardia, et al., G.R. No. 164785 and G.R. No. 165636, April 29, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano was host of the television program Ang Dating Daan aired on UNTV-37. On August 10, 2004 petitioner uttered repeated profane and sexually suggestive remarks in a program rated “G” (for general patronage), including phrases referring to a named minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo, Michael M. Sandoval. Two days later private complaints were filed with the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents (members of the INC).
Acting on the complaints, the MTRCB served a notice and, after a preliminary conference where petitioner appeared, issued on August 16, 2004 a preventive suspension order barring the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan for 20 days and set the matter for preliminary investigation under the IRR of PD 1986 and the Board’s Rules of Procedure. Petitioner sought reconsideration and recusal of certain Board members, then withdrew his motion for reconsideration and filed a petition for certiorari/prohibition (docketed G.R. No. 164785) to nullify the preventive suspension.
On September 27, 2004 the MTRCB rendered Administrative Case No. 01‑04 finding petitioner liable and imposing a three‑month suspension; co‑respondents (other hosts and the station) were exonerated for lack of evidence. Petitioner thereafter filed a separate Rule 65 petition (docketed G.R. No. 1656...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the MTRCB have authority under PD 1986 and its IRR to issue a preventive suspension and was the August 16, 2004 preventive suspension void for lack of hearing, equal protection, or as an unconstitutional regulation of religion or speech?
- Did the MTRCB commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing a three‑month suspension for petitioner’s August 10, 2004 broadcast, and does PD 1986 (Sec. 3(c)) or its IRR unconstitutionally abridge freedom of speech or amount to undue d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)