ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, GR No.
164785, 2009-04-29
Facts:
In these two petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Eliseo F.
Soriano seeks to nullify and set aside an order and a decision of the Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) in connection with certain utterances... he made
in his television show, Ang Dating Daan.
After a preliminary conference in which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by Order of
August 16, 2004, preventively suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan program for 20
days, in accordance with Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986, creating the
MTRCB, in... relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004 Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure.[5]
The same order also set the case for preliminary investigation.
The following day, petitioner sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension order,
praying that Chairperson Consoliza P. Laguardia and two other members of the
adjudication board recuse themselves from hearing the case.[6] Two days after,... however,
petitioner sought to withdraw[7] his motion for reconsideration, followed by the filing with this
Court of a petition for certiorari and prohibition,[8] docketed as G.R. No. 164785, to nullify
the preventive suspension order... thus issued.
Issues:
THE ORDER OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION PROMULGATED BY RESPONDENT
[MTRCB] DATED 16 AUGUST 2004 AGAINST THE TELEVISION PROGRAM ANG
DATING DAAN x x x IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION
We shall first dispose of the issues in G.R. No. 164785, regarding
It is petitioner's threshold posture that the preventive suspension imposed against him and
the relevant IRR provision authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD 1986 does not
expressly authorize the MTRCB to issue preventive suspension.
Ruling:
Petitioner's contention is untenable.
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.[12] They have in fine only... such powers or
authority as are granted or delegated, expressly or impliedly, by law.[13] And in
determining whether an agency has certain powers, the inquiry should be from the law
itself. But once ascertained as existing, the authority given should... be liberally construed.
[14]
A perusal of the MTRCB's basic mandate under 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.
The issuance of a preventive suspension comes well within the scope of the MTRCB's
authority and functions expressly set forth in PD 1986, more particularly under its Sec. 3(d),
as quoted above, which 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."
Recall that the MTRCB is expressly empowered by statute to regulate and supervise
television... programs to obviate the exhibition or broadcast of, among others, indecent or
immoral materials and to impose sanctions for violations and, corollarily, to prevent further
violations as it investigates. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the aforequoted Sec. 3 of the
IRR... neither amended PD 1986 nor extended the effect of the law. Neither did the
MTRCB, by imposing the assailed preventive suspension, outrun its authority under the law.
Far from it. The preventive suspension was actually done in furtherance of the law, imposed
pursuant, to repeat,... to the MTRCB's duty of regulating or supervising television programs,
pending a determination of whether or not there has actually been a violation. In the final
analysis, Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004 IRR merely formalized a power which PD 1986
bestowed, albeit... impliedly, on MTRCB.
Even if we concede that petitioner's remarks are not obscene but merely indecent speech,
still the Court rules that petitioner cannot avail himself of the constitutional protection of free
speech. Said statements were made in a medium easily accessible to children. With
respect... to the young minds, said utterances are to be treated as unprotected speech.
In ending, what petitioner obviously advocates is an unrestricted speech paradigm in which
absolute permissiveness is the norm. Petitioner's flawed belief that he may simply utter
gutter profanity on television without adverse consequences, under the guise of free
speech, does... not lend itself to acceptance in this jurisdiction. We repeat: freedoms of
speech and expression are not absolute freedoms. To say "any act that restrains speech
should be greeted with furrowed brows" is not to say that any act that restrains or regulates
speech or... expression is per se invalid. This only recognizes the importance of freedoms
of speech and expression, and indicates the necessity to carefully scrutinize acts that may
restrain or regulate speech.
