Ang Dating Daan host Eliseo S.

Soriano uttered the following statements in his TV program against

Michael Sandoval (Iglesia ni Cristos minister and regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan):

Lehitimong anak ng demonyo[!] Sinungaling [!]
Gago ka talaga[,] Michael[!] [M]asahol 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. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.

As a result, The MTRCB initially slapped Sorianos Ang Dating Daan, which was earlier given a G
rating for general viewership, with a 20-day preventive suspension after a preliminary conference.
Later, in a decision, it found him liable for his utterances, and was imposed a three-month suspension
from his TV program Ang Dating Daan. Soriano challenged the order of the MTRCB.


HELD:

The SC ruled that Sorianos 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. visit fellester.blogspot.com 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. (Soriano v. Laguardia; GR No. 165636,
April 29, 2009)

Dissenting Opinion:

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in a separate dissenting opinion, said that a single government action
could be both a penalty and a prior restraint. The Chief Magistrate pointed out that the three month
suspension takes such form because it also acts as a restraint to petitioners future speech and thus
deserves a higher scrutiny than the context based approach that the majority applied. In voting to
grant Sorianos petition, the Chief Justice said that in the absence of proof and reason, he [Soriano]
should not be penalized with a three-month suspension that works as a prior restraint on his speech.




Moot and Academic Principle; Exceptions. (J. Abad)(Rodolfo Navarro v Exec Sec Ermita)
The moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts
from resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (1) there is a grave
violation of the Constitution; (2) there is an exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formation of controlling principles
to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.