G.R. No. 164785 & G.R. No. 165636 March 15, 2010
ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, Respondents. ( G.R. No. 164785 ) and ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner, vs. MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE AQUINO-GAVINO, NOEL R. DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL BORLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO IV, and FLORIMONDO C. ROUS, in their capacity as members of the Hearing and Adjudication Committee of the MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, in their capacity as complainants before the MTRCB, Respondents. (G.R. No. 165636)

FACTS

Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, the Executive Producer and host of the televised bible exposition program “Ang Dating Daan,” filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Decision dated April 29, 2009. The said Decision modified the penalty imposed by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) by suspending the television show “Ang Dating Daan” for three months, instead of suspending petitioner Soriano personally. The complaints stemmed from statements made by Soriano during the broadcast of his program on August 10, 2004, which contained vulgar language. The MTRCB found these statements violative of the program’s “G” (General Patronage) rating, which requires that the material be suitable for all ages and contain nothing unsuitable for children.

ISSUE

The primary issues raised in the motion for reconsideration are: (1) whether the three-month suspension of the program constitutes prior restraint and abridges freedom of religion and expression; (2) whether the Court erred in ruling that Soriano’s utterances did not constitute an exercise of religion; (3) whether the Court erred in finding the language used as offensive and obscene; (4) whether the Court should have applied a policy of non-interference in conflicts between religious groups; and (5) whether the Court erred in penalizing the television program for the acts of petitioner.

RULING

The Court DENIED the motion for reconsideration. It held that:
1. The suspension is not prior restraint but a subsequent punishment for a past violation. Petitioner did not contest making the statements, which were contextually violative of the “G” rating as they were not suitable for children.
2. The utterances did not constitute religious speech. The Court found that the statements were plain insults motivated by anger and a desire for retribution against rival religious group Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) ministers, not by religious conviction. The fact that they were made during a religious program does not automatically accord them protection as religious discourse.
3. The language was obscene from the viewpoint of the average child, the intended protected audience under the “G” rating system. The Court emphasized that the standards for judging harmful effects are those for the average child, who would interpret the words literally.
4. The Court rejected the hands-off policy argument, citing its ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals that the State can regulate the exercise of religious freedom when it brings about a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, such as serious detriment to public morals. The broadcast of a religious program on television brings it out of the realm of internal belief and subjects it to regulation, especially to protect children.
5. There was no violation of due process. Petitioner admitted he was the Executive Producer of the program, and thus, he represented the program before the MTRCB. The penalty was correctly imposed on the program, not on petitioner personally.
The Court further clarified that the “safe harbor” concept from foreign jurisprudence (like Action for Children’s Television v. FCC) allowing indecent material during late-night hours is not applicable in the Philippines under the present circumstances. The penalty imposed was a direct, unconditional, and total abridgment of speech for a quarter of a year, which the Court found justified to protect the welfare of children as part of the State’s parens patriae duty.