Eliseo F. Soriano v a. !onsoli"a #. $a%&ar'ia, in (er )apa)i*+ as !(airperson o, -R!., e*.al. FA!-S/ 1In a preliminary conference, MTRCB initially filed a 20-day suspension on Soriano following the affidait- complaints !y mem!ers of the Iglesia ni Cristo against the remar"s made !y Soriano in his show Dating Daan# Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. abi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. ob!a ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito $ % 1Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration to the MTRCB and a petition for certiorari and prohi!ition to SC to nullify said preentie suspension$ MTRCB, in reiewing the case and in accordance with Implementing Rules and Regulations &IRR' of () %*+, and Sec$ -, Rule .II of the MTRCB Rules of (rocedure, found Soriano lia!le for his act and imposed a penalty of a 301on*( s&spension ,ro1 (is pro%ra1. 2Soriano then filed this petition for certiorari and prohi!ition with prayer for in/unctie relief$ 2SS3ES an' RA-24/ #e*i*ioner ar%&es/ S! re,&*es/ &%' that Sec$ 0 of () 4n ,ree'o1 o, reli%ion/ %*+, unduly infringes on the constitutional The petitioner1s statements did not coney any particular religious !elief, and nothing guarantee of freedom of furthered his aowed eangelical mission$ religion, speech, and e2pression$ Merely !eing in a !i!le e2position program does not automatically entail that statements made are of a religious discourse$ 34he was moed !y anger and the need to see" retri!ution, not !y any religious coniction$5 4n ,ree'o1 o, e5pression/ The freedom of e2pression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights, is, howeer, not a!solute$ It may !e regulated to some e2tent to sere important pu!lic interests, some forms of speech not !eing protected$ 6s has !een held, the limits of the freedom of e2pression are reached when the e2pression touches upon matters of essentially priate concern$ 4n ,ree'o1 o, spee)(/ Soriano1s statements can !e classified somewhat as &npro*e)*e' spee)( or lo6 val&e e5pression - li!elous statements, o!scenity or pornography, false or misleading adertisement, insulting or 7fighting words7, i$e$, those which !y their ery utterance inflict in/ury or tend to incite an immediate !reach of peace and e2pression endangering national security$ Soriano v Laguardia jrlc2012 1 6lthough his statements cannot !e classified o!scene in its strict definition, !ut mere indecent utterances as they can !e iewed as figures of speech or merely a play on words, the pro!lem lies in that they were uttered in a T. program that is rated 787 or for general iewership, and in a time slot that would li"ely reach een the eyes and ears of children$ In this sense, Soriano1s utterances are o!scene and not entitled to protection under the um!rella of freedom of speech$ 9urther, if there is conflict, the concept of 78alan)in% in*eres*s5 should !e underta"en$ :hich, of the two interests, demand the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented; In this case, the children need greater protection$ &2' that Sec$ 0 of () %*+, unduly infringes on :hat the MTRCB did was per1issi8le res*ri)*ion on these grounds# the constitutional guarantee of due process %$ indecent speech was made ia teleision which is a 7perasie medium7 of law and e<ual 2$ the !roadcast was aired at a time that is li"ely to hae children in the audience protection under the law 8oernment regulations through the MTRCB !ecame 7a necessary eil7 with the &a' (etitioner theori=es goernment ta"ing the role of assigning !andwidth to indiidual !roadcasters$ that the three &0'-month suspension is either prior The three-month suspension is not prior restraint !ecause a permit was already restraint or su!se<uent issued for the program$ It is in the form of per1issi8le a'1inis*ra*ive san)*ion punishment that, or s&8se9&en* p&nis(1en* for the offensie and o!scene remar"s$ It sought to howeer, includes prior penali"e an' no* 8ar *(e pe*i*ioner from future speech in other T. programs$ restraint, al!eit indirectly$ &0' that () %*+, is not 36s we held in 6ngara $ >lectoral Commission, when a general grant of power is complete in itself and conferred or a duty en/oined, eery particular power necessary for the e2ercise of does not proide for a one or the performance of the other is also conferred !y necessary implication$5 sufficient standard for its implementation there!y 6dministratie regulations or 7su!ordinate legislation7 calculated to promote the resulting in an &n'&e pu!lic interest are necessary !ecause of 7the growing comple2ity of modern life, the 'ele%a*ion o, multiplication of the su!/ects of goernmental regulations, and the increased le%isla*ive po6er !y difficulty of administering the law$7 reason that it does not proide for the penalties 4n ran%e o, i1posa8le penal*ies/ for iolations of its proisions The po6er *o 'en+ or )an)el a per1i* for the e2hi!ition of a T. program or !roadcast necessarily in)l&'es 6i*(in i*s ran%e *(e lesser po6er *o s&spen'. ?oweer, () %*+, only applies to the cancellation and suspension of programs and no* *(e people in i*. :E$; @A)8M>BT 699IRM>) with the MC)I9IC6TICB of limiting the 0-month suspension to the program "ng Dating Daan Soriano v Laguardia jrlc2012 2
Family Law Attorney Liability Immunities: Malicious Prosecution - Abuse of Process - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Litigation Privilege - Constructive Immunity From Tort Liability for Meritless Litigation and Abusive Litigation Tactics - Divorce - Divorce Court
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas