1.ELISEO F.
SORIANO VS LAGUARDIA April 29, 2009 Topic: POWER OF MTRCB TO ORDER PREVENTIVE SUSPENSIONS FACTS: On August 10, 2004, Soriano, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made the following remarks: 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.[1] x xx Thereafter, MTRCB initially filed a 20-day suspension on Soriano. Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration to the MTRCB and a petition for certiorari and prohibition to SC to nullify said preventive suspension. MTRCB, in reviewing the case and in accordance with Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure, found Soriano liable for his act and imposed a penalty of a 3-month suspension from his program. Soriano then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief. ISSUE : Whether or not the MTRCB has the power to order preventive suspensions HELD: YES. 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. PD 1986 reveals the possession by the agency of the authority, albeit impliedly, to issue the challenged order of preventive suspension. And this authority stems naturally from, and is necessary for the exercise of, its power of regulation and supervision. Sec. 3 of PD 1986 pertinently provides the following:The issuance of a preventive suspension comes well within the scope of the MTRCBs authority and functions expressly set forth in PD 1986, more particularly under its Sec. 3(dwhich empowers the MTRCB to supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for the x x x exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be x x x exhibited and/or broadcast by television.
Surely, the power to issue preventive suspension forms part of the MTRCBs express regulatory and supervisory statutory mandate and its investigatory and disciplinary authority subsumed in or implied from such mandate. Preventive suspension, it ought to be noted, is not a penalty by itself, being merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. Sec. 3(c) and (d) of PD 1986 finds application to the present case, sufficient to authorize the MTRCBs assailed action. In addition, Sec. 3(k), provides, To exercise such powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Act x x x. As we held in Angara v. Electoral Commission, when a general grant of power is conferred or a duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of one or the performance of the other is also conferred by necessary implication. Clearly, the power to impose preventive suspension pending investigation is one of the implied or inherent powers of MTRCB.
