G.R. No. 164785 and G.R. No. 165636; April 29, 2009
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, et al., Respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

On August 10, 2004, petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, host of the television program “Ang Dating Daan,” made derogatory remarks on air, calling someone a “lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae…” Private respondents, members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, filed complaints with the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). The MTRCB issued an Order on August 16, 2004, preventively suspending the program for 20 days. Petitioner challenged this order via a petition for certiorari and prohibition ( G.R. No. 164785 ). Subsequently, on September 27, 2004, the MTRCB issued a Decision finding petitioner liable and imposing a three-month suspension from his program. Petitioner challenged this decision via another petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. No. 165636). The Supreme Court consolidated the two petitions.

ISSUE

The primary issues, consolidated from both petitions, are:
1. Whether the MTRCB’s Order of preventive suspension and its subsequent Decision imposing a three-month suspension are valid, or were issued with grave abuse of discretion.
2. Whether Section 3(c) of Presidential Decree No. 1986 (the MTRCB charter) and its implementing rules are unconstitutional for allegedly infringing on freedom of religion, speech, and expression, violating due process and equal protection, and constituting an undue delegation of legislative power.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and AFFIRMED the assailed MTRCB Decision.
1. On the Preventive Suspension Order ( G.R. No. 164785 ): The Court ruled that the MTRCB has the implied authority to issue preventive suspension orders. This power is incidental to its express statutory mandate under P.D. No. 1986, Section 3(d), to “supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits” for television broadcasts to prevent the exhibition of objectionable material. Preventive suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation, not a penalty. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) provision authorizing it (Sec. 3, Chapter XIII) is a valid implementation of this regulatory power.
2. On the Constitutionality of P.D. No. 1986 and the Three-Month Suspension (G.R. No. 165636):
* Freedom of Speech and Expression: The Court held that the content-based review and subsequent penalty imposed by the MTRCB constitute a valid exercise of subsequent punishment, not an unconstitutional prior restraint. The MTRCB’s action was a corrective measure after the speech was delivered and found to be “patently offensive” and intended to insult. The State has a compelling interest in protecting private individuals from unwarranted public vilification on television. Petitioner’s utterances were not protected religious speech but were personally libelous and offensive.
* Due Process and Equal Protection: Petitioner was given due process. He received notice, attended a preliminary conference, and was able to file motions. The equal protection claim was rejected as petitioner failed to prove intentional, purposeful discrimination. The MTRCB’s actions were based on his specific violation.
* Delegation of Legislative Power: The Court found P.D. No. 1986 to be a complete law that provides a sufficient standard—”contemporary Filipino cultural values”—to guide the MTRCB. This standard is not overly vague and is commonly used in Philippine jurisprudence. The law also specifies the penalties for violations, negating the claim of undue delegation.
The Court upheld the MTRCB’s power to regulate television broadcast content to prevent the airing of material that is immoral, indecent, or contrary to law and good customs, and found no constitutional infirmity in its actions against petitioner.