Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    54. Soriano vs. Laguardia, April 29, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Netanya Gwyneth Catubuan
    Constitutional Law 2 case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    54. Soriano vs. Laguardia, April 29, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Netanya Gwyneth Catubuan
    4 views1 page
    Constitutional Law 2 case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Constitutional Law 2 case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4 views1 page

    54. Soriano vs. Laguardia, April 29, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Netanya Gwyneth Catubuan
    Constitutional Law 2 case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    54. ELISEO F. SORIANO, petitioner, vs. MA. CONSOLIZA P.

    LAGUARDIA,
    respondent G.R. No. 164785. April 29, 2009

    Facts: Petitioner, 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." Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate
    but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven
    other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against petitioner
    in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt
    directly alluded to in petitioner’s remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host
    of the TV program "Ang Tamang Daan." Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a notice
    of the hearing in relation to the alleged use of some cuss words in the episode of "Ang
    Dating Daan."

    After a preliminary conference in which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB preventively


    suspended the showing of "Ang Dating Daan" program for 20 days, in accordance with
    Section 3(d) of 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. The same order also set the case for preliminary
    investigation. 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. Two days after, petitioner
    sought to withdraw his motion for reconsideration, followed by the filing with this Court
    of a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 164785, to nullify the
    preventive suspension order thus issued.

    Issue: Whether the order of preventive suspension promulgated by respondent MTRCB


    against the television program "Ang Dating Daan" is null and void for being issued with
    grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

    Answer: No, the order of preventive suspension issued by the MTRCB against the
    television program "Ang Dating Daan" is not null and void. The MTRCB acted within its
    jurisdiction and in accordance with its mandate under Section 3(d) of PD 1986, the
    2004 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986, and the MTRCB Rules of
    Procedure. The preventive suspension was issued after a preliminary conference and in
    response to complaints lodged by private respondents, which were based on the
    petitioner's use of offensive language on air.

    The petitioner had been given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to appear,
    which he did. The MTRCB's decision to suspend the show for 20 days was a preventive
    measure, not a final judgment, intended to address potential violations of broadcasting
    standards and maintain public order and decency in media content. Furthermore, the
    petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration and request for certain board
    members to recuse themselves from the case do not inherently demonstrate that the
    MTRCB acted with grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the MTRCB's preventive
    suspension order was a valid exercise of its regulatory authority.

    Submitted by: Netanya Gwyneth J. Catubuan JD 1D

    You might also like