SUBJECT:

TOPIC:

Date Made:

Digest Maker:

CONSTI 2

Equal Protection

2/7/2016

Yenyen Te

CASE NAME: Soriano vs Laguardia

PONENTE: Velasco, Jr., J.

Case Date: April 29, 2009

Case Summary:
Petitioner was a host of the show Ang Dating Daan who uttered allegedly obscene words
that was seen as an attack on the church of Iglesia ni Cristo by private respondents (who
are members and a minister of the INC.) Respondent Laguardia is the Chairperson of
MTRCB. The MTRCB took note of private respondents complaints and set a hearing for
petitioners case, which he attended. They then issued a preventive suspension order on
the petitioner. Aggrieved, petitioner went to the SC to nullify such order. However, while the
case was pending, the MTRCB found cause to issue an actual 3 month suspension on the
petitioner. Again, petitioner went to the SC questioning the validity of such suspension order
as well as the constitutionality of PD 1986 creating the MTRCB. The SC then consolidated
the two cases. In discussing the case, the SC said that the preventive suspension order
issued on the petitioner was NOT invalid for being violative of the freedom of speech,
religion, and equal protection of laws. The fact that the utterances in question were said on
a televised broadcast about the Bible does not automatically coat it with religious belief.
On the topic of equal protection of laws, the Court said that the position of the petitioner
as someone and the ministers of INC are too different to be put under the purview of equal
protection; there is no reason to invoke equal protection here seeing as the petitioner is
only temporarily deprived of being able to answer the criticisms directed at him by INC
ministers. Finally, the Court also ruled PD 1986 as not unconstitutional for the same reasons.
The MTRCB is vested with power to order preventive suspensions even if it is not expressly
provided for in PD 1986 because it is a power necessary in the exercise of its function to
regulate and supervise motion pictures, tv shows, and etc in the Philippines. However, the
Court saw that the suspension order on the petitioner had to be modified because
nowhere in PD 1986 does it say that MTRCB has the power to prohibit specific people from
appearing on TV; what can be prohibited is the broadcast of the show itself. Thus, the order
issued on the petitioner was modified and the penalty of 3 months was imposed on the
show Ang Dating Daan, and not on the petitioner himself.
Rule of Law:
Article III, Sec I
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Detailed Facts:

BLOCK D 2019 !1

Note: This is a consolidated case re: two similar petitions by Soriano arising from one event.
The Consti syllabus only refers to one of the petitions for discussion (the first, G.R. No. 164785,
re: the preventive suspension order of the MTRCB Board), The second case was an attack
on the constitutionality of PD 1986 creating the MTRCB Board. Since the cases were
consolidated, Ill focus on the issues raised in the first case and include a short summary of
the ruling in the second.
This is a petition for certiorari where petitioner Soriano seeks to annul MTRCB (Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board) preventive suspension order in connection
with what he said on tv show Ang Dating Daan. This is what he said on the August 10,
2004 episode:
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. Sabi ng lola ko masahol
pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito
Two days later members of Iglesia ni Cristo (the private respondents in this case) filed
complaint-affidavits before the MTRCB board; one of them, respondent Michael
Sandoval, felt directly alluded to as a minister of INC and a host on his own show, Ang
Tamang Daan.
MTRCB sent petitioner a notice for hearing regarding his alleged use of cuss words on the
show.
They held a preliminary conference where petitioner appeared.
Afterwards, MTRCB issued an order to preventively suspend the showing of Ang Dating
Daan program for 20 days, in accordance with Sec. 3 of PD 1986, creating the MTRCB
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; they also set the case for preliminary
investigation.
The following day, petitioner sought reconsideration of the order, praying that respondent
Laguardia, as Chairperson of the Board, and two other members be excluded from
hearing the case, but, he withdrew his motion for reconsideration and instead filed the
current case with the Supreme Court to nullify the preventive suspension issued.
The MTRCB then issued a decision finding respondent Soriano liable for his utterances and
suspending him for 3 months from appearing on the program Ang Dating Daan
The petitioner then filed a second case in the Supreme Court regarding the
constitutionality of PD 1986 creating the MTRCB. (This is the second case.)
The SC then consolidated both cases and set the case for hearing.
Issue:

BLOCK D 2019 !2

Note: There were five identical issues raised in the first case re: the preventive suspension
order and the second case re: the unconstitutionality of PD 1986. The only difference is that
the second case had an additional point re: the undue delegation of legislative power.
The points in the first case were rendered moot because the preventive suspension order
was superseded by an actual 3-month suspension, but the Court ruled on them anyway
because they were also raised as contentions in the second case, thus the consolidation.
1) Are the preventive suspension order and implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the
MTRCB are invalid insofar as PD 1986 does not expressly provide for the issuance of
preventive suspension orders? (S)
2) Was the preventive suspension order invalid by reason of lack of due hearing? (P)
3) Was the preventive suspension order invalid for being violative of the equal protection
of laws? (S)
4) Was the preventive suspension order invalid for being violative of the exercise of
petitioners religious freedom? (S)
5) Was the preventive suspension order AND the 3-month suspension order invalid for being
violative of the exercise of petitioners freedom of speech? (S)
* Not relevant to the case provided in the syllabus, but Ill put it here anyway:
* 6) Is PD 1986 unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power?
Holding:

BLOCK D 2019 !3

1) (S) NO, the preventive suspension order and IRR are NOT invalid. PD 1986 DOES provide
for the issuance of preventive suspension.
Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be administrative,
investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as may be
conferred by the Constitution or by statute. Looking at PD 1986, specifically Section 3
outlining the Powers and Functions of the Board, we can the implied power of the MTRCB
to issue preventive suspension orders by virtue of its mandate to regulate and supervise
television broadcasts. It is a power necessary to the exercise of its functions. Preventive
suspension, it ought to be noted, is not a penalty by itself, being merely a preliminary step in
an administrative investigation. Seeing as the MTRCB is vested with powers of investigation,
it really is necessary that they have the power to issue preventive suspensions. Additionally,
petitioners argument that the IRR only provides for preventive suspension insofar as motion
pictures and publicity materials are concerned is unacceptable; such power must
necessarily extend far beyond movies and posters, as can be understood by the acronym
MTRCB itself.
2) (P) NO, the preventive suspension order is NOT invalid because of lack of due hearing.
As can be proven by the facts of the case, such decision was rendered after the
petitioner was given due notice of a hearing for his case. He also personally appeared
during the hearing before the preventive suspension order was issued.
3) (S) NO, the preventive suspension order is NOT invalid for being violative of equal
protection of laws. Petitioner argues that it violates equal protection because he was
not able to answer the criticisms directed at him by INC ministers and members. The
Court said this is untenable. The equal protection clause demands that "all persons
subject to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions
both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. It guards against undue favor
and individual privilege as well as hostile discrimination. Petitioner cannot invoke it on
the ground that the preventive suspension order temporarily deprived him of the
oppotunity to answer to criticisms that arose from his utterances on his own show. The
circumstances of petitioner, as host of Ang Dating Daan facing an administrative
charge, and the INC ministers/host of Ang Tamang Daan offended by him, are too
different to consider under the purview of equal protection of laws.
4) (S) NO, the preventive suspension order does NOT violative petitioners religious
freedom. Petitioner argues that what he said on the show, including the words putang
babae was an exercise of his right to religion. The Court finds this unconvincing. Just
because the words were said on a religious show/televised Bible exposition program
doesnt mean that the words themselves pertained to religion. There is nothing in
petitioners statements expressing any particular religious belief,
5) (S) NO, the preventive suspension order and suspension order DO NOT violate petitioners
freedom of speech. As established in jurisprudence, there are certain kinds of
communication that are considered unprotected speech. These include libelous
statements, obscenity or pornography, false or misleading advertisement, insulting or
"fighting words", i.e., those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of peace and expression endangering national security. Petitioners
obscene words fall under the purview of unprotected speech, as it was offensive and
inappropriate not for adults, children because it was uttered on a rated G show.
BLOCK D 2019 !4

6) (S) NO, PD 1986 is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The issues of religious freedom, freedom of
speech, and equal protection were already raised and discussed by the Court when they
upheld the validity of the preventive suspension order. Thus they saw no need to discuss it
again on the issue of PD 1986s constitutionality. The only thing they discussed regarding this
was the issue of undue delegation of legislative power. The petitioner said that there was
undue delegation because PD 1986 does not provide a range of penalties for specific
violations of the law. The Court said that this is without merit because the MTRCB already
has a mandate (to regulate shows and movies and see that they are in line with
contemporary Filipino values), and it is unreasonable to expect very specific penalties for
specific violations of the law. The MTRCB should be allowed some elbow room to exercise
their powers of regulating and supervising. However, the Court DID recognize that the
suspension order had to be modified, because nowhere in the law does it say that MTRCB
has the power to prohibit specific people from appearing on shows and such. What it CAN
do is prohibit the airing of the shows themselves. So the Court changed the suspension
order and made it so that it was placed on the show Ang Dating Daan itself, and not on
the petitioner.
Ruling:
The preventive suspension order and 3-month suspension orders are valid insofar as
freedom of religion, speech, and equal protection are concerned
PD 1986 is not unconstitutional
However, the 3-month suspension order is MODIFIED; the penalty of 3 months is now
imposed on the show Ang Dating Daan, and not on the petitioner.
Other Opinions:
N/A

BLOCK D 2019 !5