Title
Soriano vs. Laguardia
Case
G.R. No. 164785
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2010
A TV host's vulgar remarks during a "G"-rated religious program led to a three-month suspension, upheld by the Supreme Court, balancing free speech with public welfare and child protection.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164785)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Eliseo F. Soriano – petitioner, presiding minister and host–producer of the television program *Ang Dating Daan*, aired nationwide with a “G” (general patronage) rating.
    • Respondents – Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) members and Iglesia ni Cristo ministers who filed complaints against Soriano.
  • Broadcast Incident and Administrative Action
    • August 10, 2004 broadcast – on *Ang Dating Daan*, Soriano reacted in strong language to a rival Iglesia ni Cristo program (*Ang Tamang Daan*) that had allegedly spliced and misrepresented his prior statements.
    • MTRCB preventive suspension – imposed a 20-day suspension on the program under PD 1986, Sec. 3(d) for alleged violations of its “G” rating requirement.
    • Formal penalty – after a hearing, the MTRCB imposed a three-month suspension on *Ang Dating Daan* for contextual use of vulgar and potentially obscene language on prime-time television.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • Petitions filed – Soriano sought certiorari relief in G.R. No. 164785 and G.R. No. 165636 challenging preventive and penalty suspensions, later consolidated.
    • Supreme Court decision (April 29, 2009) – affirmed MTRCB’s authority, modified the penalty so that the three-month suspension applied to the program (not personally to Soriano), and upheld the preventive suspension.
    • Motion for reconsideration – filed by Soriano raising five grounds; resolved by a Supreme Court Resolution denying reconsideration.

Issues:

  • Whether the three-month suspension constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
  • Whether Soriano’s broadcast utterances fall within the exercise of religion and are thus immune from regulation.
  • Whether the language used was legally offensive or obscene under the “G” rating standards.
  • Whether the Court should have applied non-interference in intra-religious conflicts.
  • Whether due process was violated by penalizing the program without proper representation of the registered producer.

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.