Soriano vs.
La Guardia
Facts:
On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the
program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made obscene remarks
against INC. Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost
identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven
other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC),
against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent
Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioner’s remark, was
then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang
Daan.
Issue:
Are Soriano‟s statements during the televised “Ang Dating Daan” part of
the religious discourse and within the protection of Sections 4 and 5, Art.III
of the Phil Constitution?
Held:
No. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, therefore, and
considering the adverse effect of petitioner‟s utterances on the viewers‟
fundamental rights as well as petitioner‟s clear violation of his duty as a
public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from appearing in Ang
Dating Daan for three months. Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted
that petitioner’s suspension was an undue curtailment of his right to free
speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside
from the reasons given above (re the paramountcy of viewers rights, the
public trusteeship character of a broadcaster‟s role and the power of the
State to regulate broadcast media), a requirement that indecent language
be avoided has its primary effect on the form, rather than the content, of
serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be
expressed by the use of less offensive language. The SC ruled that
Soriano‘s statement can be treated as obscene, at least with respect to the
average child, and thus his utterances cannot be considered as protected
speech.
Citing decisions from the US Supreme Court, the High Court said that the
analysis should be context based and found the utterances to be obscene
after considering the use of television broadcasting as a medium, the time
of the show, and the G rating of the show, which are all factors that made
the utterances susceptible to children viewers. The Court emphasized on
how the uttered words could be easily understood by a child literally rather
than in the context that they were used.
The SC also said that the suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a
form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment. In
affirming the power of the MTRCB to issue an order of suspension, the
majority said that it is a sanction that the MTRCB may validly impose under
its charter without running afoul of the free speech clause. The Court said
that the suspension is not a prior restraint on the right of petitioner to
continue with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as a permit was already
issued to him by MTRCB, rather, it was a sanction for the indecent contents
of his utterances in a G rated TV program.
Moreover, petitioner’s flawed belief that he may simply utter gutter profanity
on television without adverse consequences, under the guise of free
speech, does not lend itself to acceptance in this jurisdiction. The high
Court stresses the oft-repeated principle that freedoms of speech and
expression are not absolute freedoms.
The MTRCB, to be sure, may prohibit the broadcast of such television
programs or cancel permits for exhibition, but it may not suspend television
personalities, for such would be beyond its jurisdiction. The MTRCB cannot
extend its exercise of regulation beyond what the law provides. Only
persons, offenses, and penalties clearly falling clearly within the letter and
spirit of PD 1986 will be considered to be within the decree’s penal or
disciplinary operation. And when it exists, the reasonable doubt must be
resolved in favor of the person charged with violating the statute and for
whom the penalty is sought. Thus, the MTRCB’s decision in Administrative
Case No. 01-04 dated September 27, 2004 and the subsequent order
issued pursuant to said decision must be modified. The suspension should
cover only the television program on which petitioner appeared and uttered
the offensive and obscene language, which sanction is what the law and
the facts obtaining call for.
