G.R. No.

164785               April 29, 2009 Galapon and seven other private respondents, all
members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC),2 against
ELISEO F. SORIANO,  petitioner in connection with the above broadcast.
Petitioner, Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly
vs. alluded to in petitioner’s remark, was then a minister of
MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang
Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Daan.3 Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a notice of
Classification Board, MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW the hearing on August 16, 2004 in relation to the
AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, alleged use of some cuss words in the August 10, 2004
ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, episode of Ang Dating Daan.4
JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S.
YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A. After a preliminary conference in which petitioner
GAVINO, Respondents. appeared, the MTRCB, by Order of August 16, 2004,
preventively suspended the showing of Ang Dating
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Daan program for 20 days, in accordance with Section
3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986, creating the
G.R. No. 165636               April 29, 2009 MTRCB, in relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986
ELISEO F. SORIANO  and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of
Petitioner, Procedure.5 The same order also set the case for
vs. preliminary investigation.
MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION
BOARD, ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE AQUINO-GAVINO, The following day, petitioner sought reconsideration of
NOEL R. DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL BORLAZA, JOSE E. the preventive suspension order, praying that
ROMERO IV, and FLORIMONDO C. ROUS, in their Chairperson Consoliza P. Laguardia and two other
capacity as members of the Hearing and Adjudication members of the adjudication board recuse themselves
Committee of the MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL from hearing the case.6 Two days after, however,
M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. petitioner sought to withdraw7 his motion for
LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., reconsideration, followed by the filing with this Court of
MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, in a petition for certiorari and prohibition,8 docketed as
their capacity as complainants before the G.R. No. 164785, to nullify the preventive suspension
MTRCB Respondents. order thus issued.

DECISION On September 27, 2004, in Adm. Case No. 01-04, the

MTRCB issued a decision, disposing as follows:
VELASCO, JR., J.:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, a Decision is
In these two petitions for certiorari and prohibition hereby rendered, finding respondent Soriano liable for
under Rule 65, petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano seeks to his utterances and thereby imposing on him a penalty of
nullify and set aside an order and a decision of the three (3) months suspension from his program, "Ang
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board Dating Daan".
(MTRCB) in connection with certain utterances he made
in his television show, Ang Dating Daan. Co-respondents Joselito Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz and
UNTV Channel 37 and its owner, PBC, are hereby
Facts of the Case exonerated for lack of evidence.

On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as SO ORDERED.9

host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV
37, made the following remarks: Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief, docketed as
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; G.R. No. 165636.

Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang In a Resolution dated April 4, 2005, the Court
babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang consolidated G.R. No. 164785 with G.R. No. 165636.
doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang
itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi In G.R. No. 164785, petitioner raises the following
ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang issues:
kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.1 x x x
THE ORDER OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost PROMULGATED BY RESPONDENT [MTRCB] DATED 16
identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. AUGUST 2004 AGAINST THE TELEVISION PROGRAM

Page 1 of 13
ANG DATING DAAN x x x IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE PENALTIES FOR
ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION [IRR], RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND OFFICIAL ACTS OF
THE MTRCB PURSUANT THERETO, I.E. DECISION DATED
(A) BY REASON THAT THE [IRR] IS INVALID 27 SEPTEMBER 2004 AND ORDER DATED 19 OCTOBER
INSOFAR AS IT PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF 2004, ARE LIKEWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM AS
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDERS; APPLIED IN THE CASE AT BENCH11

(B) BY REASON OF LACK OF DUE HEARING IN G.R. No. 164785

THE CASE AT BENCH;
We shall first dispose of the issues in G.R. No. 164785,
(C) FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF EQUAL regarding the assailed order of preventive suspension,
PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW; although its implementability had already been
overtaken and veritably been rendered moot by the
(D) FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF equally assailed September 27, 2004 decision.
RELIGION; AND
It is petitioner’s threshold posture that the preventive
(E) FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF suspension imposed against him and the relevant IRR
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.10 provision authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD 1986
does not expressly authorize the MTRCB to issue
In G.R. No. 165636, petitioner relies on the following preventive suspension.
grounds:
Petitioner’s contention is untenable.
SECTION 3(C) OF [PD] 1986, IS
PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ENACTED Administrative agencies have powers and functions
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION x x x which may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory,
CONSIDERING THAT: quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as
may be conferred by the Constitution or by
I statute.12 They have in fine only such powers or
authority as are granted or delegated, expressly or
SECTION 3(C) OF [PD] 1986, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, impliedly, by law.13 And in determining whether an
UNDULY INFRINGES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL agency has certain powers, the inquiry should be from
GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, AND the law itself. But once ascertained as existing, the
EXPRESSION AS IT PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF A authority given should be liberally construed.14
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT CURTAILING THE SAME;
CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND A perusal of the MTRCB’s basic mandate under PD 1986
REGULATIONS, RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND OFFICIAL reveals the possession by the agency of the authority,
ACTS OF THE MTRCB PURSUANT THERETO, I.E. albeit impliedly, to issue the challenged order of
DECISION DATED 27 SEPTEMBER 2004 AND ORDER preventive suspension. And this authority stems
DATED 19 OCTOBER 2004, ARE LIKEWISE naturally from, and is necessary for the exercise of, its
CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM AS APPLIED IN THE CASE AT power of regulation and supervision.
BENCH;
Sec. 3 of PD 1986 pertinently provides the following:
II
Section 3. Powers and Functions.—The BOARD shall
SECTION 3(C) OF [PD] 1986, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, have the following functions, powers and duties:
UNDULY INFRINGES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL xxxx
PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW; CONSEQUENTLY, THE
[IRR], RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND OFFICIAL ACTS OF c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable
THE MTRCB PURSUANT THERETO, I.E., DECISION DATED portions from and/or prohibit the x x x production, x x x
27 SEPTEMBER 2004 AND ORDER DATED 19 OCTOBER exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion
2004, ARE LIKEWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM AS pictures, television programs and publicity materials
APPLIED IN THE CASE AT BENCH; AND subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in the
judgment of the board applying contemporary Filipino
III cultural values as standard, are objectionable for being
immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good
[PD] 1986 IS NOT COMPLETE IN ITSELF AND DOES NOT customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the
PROVIDE FOR A SUFFICIENT STANDARD FOR ITS Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency
IMPLEMENTATION THEREBY RESULTING IN AN UNDUE to encourage the commission of violence or of wrong or
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY REASON THAT crime such as but not limited to:

Page 2 of 13
 xxxx Sec. 3. PREVENTION SUSPENSION ORDER.––Any time
during the pendency of the case, and in order to
vi) Those which are libelous or defamatory to the good prevent or stop further violations or for the interest and
name and reputation of any person, whether living or welfare of the public, the Chairman of the Board may
dead; issue a Preventive Suspension Order mandating the
preventive x x x suspension of the permit/permits
xxxx involved, and/or closure of the x x x television network,
cable TV station x x x provided that the
(d) To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, temporary/preventive order thus issued shall have a life
permits for the x x x production, copying, distribution, of not more than twenty (20) days from the date of
sale, lease, exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all issuance.
motion pictures, television programs and publicity
materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs But the mere absence of a provision on preventive
and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be suspension in PD 1986, without more, would not work
objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof to deprive the MTRCB a basic disciplinary tool, such as
shall be x x x produced, copied, reproduced, distributed, preventive suspension. Recall that the MTRCB is
sold, leased, exhibited and/or broadcast by television; expressly empowered by statute to regulate and
supervise television programs to obviate the exhibition
xxxx or broadcast of, among others, indecent or immoral
materials and to impose sanctions for violations and,
k) To exercise such powers and functions as may be corollarily, to prevent further violations as it
necessary or incidental to the attainment of the investigates. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the
purposes and objectives of this Act x x x. (Emphasis aforequoted Sec. 3 of the IRR neither amended PD 1986
added.) nor extended the effect of the law. Neither did the
MTRCB, by imposing the assailed preventive
The issuance of a preventive suspension comes well suspension, outrun its authority under the law. Far from
within the scope of the MTRCB’s authority and it. The preventive suspension was actually done in
functions expressly set forth in PD 1986, more furtherance of the law, imposed pursuant, to repeat, to
particularly under its Sec. 3(d), as quoted above, which the MTRCB’s duty of regulating or supervising television
empowers the MTRCB to "supervise, regulate, and programs, pending a determination of whether or not
grant, deny or cancel, permits for the x x x exhibition, there has actually been a violation. In the final analysis,
and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004 IRR merely formalized a
television programs and publicity materials, to the end power which PD 1986 bestowed, albeit impliedly, on
that no such pictures, programs and materials as are MTRCB.
determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in
accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be x x x Sec. 3(c) and (d) of PD 1986 finds application to the
exhibited and/or broadcast by television." present case, sufficient to authorize the MTRCB’s
assailed action. Petitioner’s restrictive reading of PD
Surely, the power to issue preventive suspension forms 1986, limiting the MTRCB to functions within the literal
part of the MTRCB’s express regulatory and supervisory confines of the law, would give the agency little leeway
statutory mandate and its investigatory and disciplinary to operate, stifling and rendering it inutile, when Sec.
authority subsumed in or implied from such mandate. 3(k) of PD 1986 clearly intends to grant the MTRCB a
Any other construal would render its power to regulate, wide room for flexibility in its operation. Sec. 3(k), we
supervise, or discipline illusory. reiterate, provides, "To exercise such powers and
functions as may be necessary or incidental to the
Preventive suspension, it ought to be noted, is not a attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Act x x
penalty by itself, being merely a preliminary step in an x." Indeed, the power to impose preventive suspension
administrative investigation.15 And the power to is one of the implied powers of MTRCB. As distinguished
discipline and impose penalties, if granted, carries with from express powers, implied powers are those that can
it the power to investigate administrative complaints be inferred or are implicit in the wordings or conferred
and, during such investigation, to preventively suspend by necessary or fair implication of the enabling act.17 As
the person subject of the complaint.16 we held in Angara v. Electoral Commission, when a
general grant of power is conferred or a duty enjoined,
To reiterate, preventive suspension authority of the every particular power necessary for the exercise of one
MTRCB springs from its powers conferred under PD or the performance of the other is also conferred by
1986. The MTRCB did not, as petitioner insinuates, necessary implication.18 Clearly, the power to impose
empower itself to impose preventive suspension preventive suspension pending investigation is one of
through the medium of the IRR of PD 1986. It is true the implied or inherent powers of MTRCB.
that the matter of imposing preventive suspension is
embodied only in the IRR of PD 1986. Sec. 3, Chapter We cannot agree with petitioner’s assertion that the
XIII of the IRR provides: aforequoted IRR provision on preventive suspension is
applicable only to motion pictures and publicity
Page 3 of 13
materials. The scope of the MTRCB’s authority extends Petitioner next injects the notion of religious freedom,
beyond motion pictures. What the acronym MTRCB submitting that what he uttered was religious speech,
stands for would suggest as much. And while the law adding that words like "putang babae" were said in
makes specific reference to the closure of a television exercise of his religious freedom.
network, the suspension of a television program is a far
less punitive measure that can be undertaken, with the The argument has no merit.
purpose of stopping further violations of PD 1986.
Again, the MTRCB would regretfully be rendered The Court is at a loss to understand how petitioner’s
ineffective should it be subject to the restrictions utterances in question can come within the pale of Sec.
petitioner envisages. 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution on religious
freedom. The section reads as follows:
Just as untenable is petitioner’s argument on the nullity
of the preventive suspension order on the ground of No law shall be made respecting the establishment of a
lack of hearing. As it were, the MTRCB handed out the religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
assailed order after petitioner, in response to a written free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
notice, appeared before that Board for a hearing on worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
private respondents’ complaint. No less than petitioner forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required
admitted that the order was issued after the for the exercise of civil or political rights.
adjournment of the hearing,19 proving that he had
already appeared before the MTRCB. Under Sec. 3, There is nothing in petitioner’s statements subject of
Chapter XIII of the IRR of PD 1986, preventive the complaints expressing any particular religious belief,
suspension shall issue "[a]ny time during the pendency nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission. The
of the case." In this particular case, it was done after fact that he came out with his statements in a televised
MTRCB duly apprised petitioner of his having possibly bible exposition program does not automatically accord
violated PD 198620 and of administrative complaints them the character of a religious discourse. Plain and
that had been filed against him for such violation.21 simple insults directed at another person cannot be
elevated to the status of religious speech. Even
At any event, that preventive suspension can validly be petitioner’s attempts to place his words in context show
meted out even without a hearing.22 that he was moved by anger and the need to seek
retribution, not by any religious conviction. His claim,
Petitioner next faults the MTRCB for denying him his assuming its veracity, that some INC ministers distorted
right to the equal protection of the law, arguing that, his statements respecting amounts Ang Dating Daan
owing to the preventive suspension order, he was owed to a TV station does not convert the foul language
unable to answer the criticisms coming from the INC used in retaliation as religious speech. We cannot
ministers. accept that petitioner made his statements in defense
of his reputation and religion, as they constitute no
Petitioner’s position does not persuade. The equal intelligible defense or refutation of the alleged lies
protection clause demands that "all persons subject to being spread by a rival religious group. They simply
legislation should be treated alike, under like illustrate that petitioner had descended to the level of
circumstances and conditions both in the privileges name-calling and foul-language discourse. Petitioner
conferred and liabilities imposed."23 It guards against could have chosen to contradict and disprove his
undue favor and individual privilege as well as hostile detractors, but opted for the low road.
discrimination.24 Surely, petitioner cannot, under the
premises, place himself in the same shoes as the INC Petitioner, as a final point in G.R. No. 164785, would
ministers, who, for one, are not facing administrative have the Court nullify the 20-day preventive suspension
complaints before the MTRCB. For another, he offers no order, being, as insisted, an unconstitutional
proof that the said ministers, in their TV programs, use abridgement of the freedom of speech and expression
language similar to that which he used in his own, and an impermissible prior restraint. The main issue
necessitating the MTRCB’s disciplinary action. If the tendered respecting the adverted violation and the
immediate result of the preventive suspension order is arguments holding such issue dovetails with those
that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is challenging the three-month suspension imposed under
unable to answer his critics, this does not become a the assailed September 27, 2004 MTRCB decision
deprivation of the equal protection guarantee. The subject of review under G.R. No. 165636. Both
Court need not belabor the fact that the circumstances overlapping issues and arguments shall be jointly
of petitioner, as host of Ang Dating Daan, on one hand, addressed.
and the INC ministers, as hosts of Ang Tamang Daan, on
the other, are, within the purview of this case, simply G.R. No. 165636
too different to even consider whether or not there is a
prima facie indication of oppressive inequality. Petitioner urges the striking down of the decision
suspending him from hosting Ang Dating Daan for three
months on the main ground that the decision violates,

Page 4 of 13
apart from his religious freedom, his freedom of speech essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such
and expression guaranteed under Sec. 4, Art. III of the slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit that
Constitution, which reads: may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
social interest in order and morality."33 Being of little or
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of no value, there is, in dealing with or regulating them, no
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the imperative call for the application of the clear and
people peaceably to assemble and petition the present danger rule or the balancing-of-interest test,
government for redress of grievance. they being essentially modes of weighing competing
values,34 or, with like effect, determining which of the
He would also have the Court declare PD 1986, its Sec. clashing interests should be advanced.
3(c) in particular, unconstitutional for reasons
articulated in this petition. Petitioner asserts that his utterance in question is a
protected form of speech.
We are not persuaded as shall be explained shortly. But
first, we restate certain general concepts and principles The Court rules otherwise. It has been established in
underlying the freedom of speech and expression. this jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-value
expression refers to libelous statements, obscenity or
It is settled that expressions by means of newspapers, pornography, false or misleading advertisement,
radio, television, and motion pictures come within the insulting or "fighting words", i.e., those which by their
broad protection of the free speech and expression very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an
clause.25 Each method though, because of its dissimilar immediate breach of peace and expression endangering
presence in the lives of people and accessibility to national security.
children, tends to present its own problems in the area
of free speech protection, with broadcast media, of all The Court finds that petitioner’s statement can be
forms of communication, enjoying a lesser degree of treated as obscene, at least with respect to the average
protection.26 Just as settled is the rule that restrictions, child. Hence, it is, in that context, unprotected speech.
be it in the form of prior restraint, e.g., judicial In Fernando v. Court of Appeals, the Court expressed
injunction against publication or threat of cancellation difficulty in formulating a definition of obscenity that
of license/franchise, or subsequent liability, whether in would apply to all cases, but nonetheless stated the
libel and damage suits, prosecution for sedition, or ensuing observations on the matter:
contempt proceedings, are anathema to the freedom of
expression. Prior restraint means official government There is no perfect definition of "obscenity" but the
restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in latest word is that of Miller v. California which
advance of actual publication or dissemination.27 The established basic guidelines, to wit: (a) whether to the
freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms average person, applying contemporary standards
encased in the Bill of Rights, is, however, not absolute. would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
It may be regulated to some extent to serve important prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or
public interests, some forms of speech not being describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
protected. As has been held, the limits of the freedom specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c)
of expression are reached when the expression touches whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
upon matters of essentially private concern.28 In the oft- literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. But, it
quoted expression of Justice Holmes, the constitutional would be a serious misreading of Miller to conclude that
guarantee "obviously was not intended to give the trier of facts has the unbridled discretion in
immunity for every possible use of language."29 From determining what is "patently offensive." x x x What
Lucas v. Royo comes this line: "[T]he freedom to express remains clear is that obscenity is an issue proper for
one’s sentiments and belief does not grant one the judicial determination and should be treated on a case
license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of to case basis and on the judge’s sound discretion.35
another. Any sentiments must be expressed within the
proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of Following the contextual lessons of the cited case of
others."30 Miller v. California,36 a patently offensive utterance
would come within the pale of the term obscenity
Indeed, as noted in Chaplinsky v. State of New should it appeal to the prurient interest of an average
Hampshire,31 "there are certain well-defined and listener applying contemporary standards.
narrowly limited classes of speech that are harmful, the
prevention and punishment of which  has never been A cursory examination of the utterances complained of
thought to raise any Constitutional problems." In net and the circumstances of the case reveal that to an
effect, some forms of speech are not protected by the average adult, the utterances "Gago ka talaga x x x,
Constitution, meaning that restrictions on unprotected masahol ka pa sa putang babae x x x. Yung putang
speech may be decreed without running afoul of the babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay
freedom of speech clause.32 A speech would fall under Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba!"  may not
the unprotected type if the utterances involved are "no constitute obscene but merely indecent utterances.

Page 5 of 13
They can be viewed as figures of speech or merely a Foundation,37 a 1978 American landmark case cited
play on words. In the context they were used, they may in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans,
not appeal to the prurient interests of an adult. The Jr.38 and Chavez v. Gonzales,39 is a rich source of
problem with the challenged statements is that they persuasive lessons. Foremost of these relates to
were uttered in a TV program that is rated "G" or for indecent speech without prurient appeal component
general viewership, and in a time slot that would likely coming under the category of protected speech
reach even the eyes and ears of children. depending on the context within which it was made,
irresistibly suggesting that, within a particular context,
While adults may have understood that the terms thus such indecent speech may validly be categorized as
used were not to be taken literally, children could unprotected, ergo, susceptible to restriction.
hardly be expected to have the same discernment.
Without parental guidance, the unbridled use of such In FCC, seven of what were considered "filthy"
language as that of petitioner in a television broadcast words40 earlier recorded in a monologue by a satiric
could corrupt impressionable young minds. The term humorist later aired in the afternoon over a radio
"putang babae" means "a female prostitute," a term station owned by Pacifica Foundation. Upon the
wholly inappropriate for children, who could look it up complaint of a man who heard the pre-recorded
in a dictionary and just get the literal meaning, missing monologue while driving with his son, FCC declared the
the context within which it was used. Petitioner further language used as "patently offensive" and "indecent"
used the terms, "ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba," under a prohibiting law, though not necessarily
making reference to the female sexual organ and how a obscene. FCC added, however, that its declaratory order
female prostitute uses it in her trade, then stating that was issued in a "special factual context," referring, in
Sandoval was worse than that by using his mouth in a gist, to an afternoon radio broadcast when children
similar manner. Children could be motivated by were undoubtedly in the audience. Acting on the
curiosity and ask the meaning of what petitioner said, question of whether the FCC could regulate the subject
also without placing the phrase in context. They may be utterance, the US Supreme Court ruled in the
inquisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a female affirmative, owing to two special features of the
prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity. And broadcast medium, to wit: (1) radio is a pervasive
upon learning the meanings of the words used, young medium and (2) broadcasting is uniquely accessible to
minds, without the guidance of an adult, may, from children. The US Court, however, hastened to add that
their end, view this kind of indecent speech as obscene, the monologue would be protected speech in other
if they take these words literally and use them in their contexts, albeit it did not expound and identify a
own speech or form their own ideas on the matter. In compelling state interest in putting FCC’s content-based
this particular case, where children had the opportunity regulatory action under scrutiny.
to hear petitioner’s words, when speaking of the
average person in the test for obscenity, we are The Court in Chavez41 elucidated on the distinction
speaking of the average child, not the average adult. between regulation or restriction of protected speech
The average child may not have the adult’s grasp of that is content-based and that which is content-neutral.
figures of speech, and may lack the understanding that A content-based restraint is aimed at the contents or
language may be colorful, and words may convey more idea of the expression, whereas a content-neutral
than the literal meaning. Undeniably the subject speech restraint intends to regulate the time, place, and
is very suggestive of a female sexual organ and its manner of the expression under well-defined standards
function as such. In this sense, we find petitioner’s tailored to serve a compelling state interest, without
utterances obscene and not entitled to protection restraint on the message of the expression. Courts
under the umbrella of freedom of speech. subject content-based restraint to strict scrutiny.

Even if we concede that petitioner’s remarks are not With the view we take of the case, the suspension
obscene but merely indecent speech, still the Court MTRCB imposed under the premises was, in one
rules that petitioner cannot avail himself of the perspective, permissible restriction. We make this
constitutional protection of free speech. Said disposition against the backdrop of the following
statements were made in a medium easily accessible to interplaying factors: First, the indecent speech was
children. With respect to the young minds, said made via television, a pervasive medium that, to
utterances are to be treated as unprotected speech. borrow from Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak,42 easily
"reaches every home where there is a set [and where]
No doubt what petitioner said constitutes indecent or [c]hildren will likely be among the avid viewers of the
offensive utterances. But while a jurisprudential pattern programs therein shown"; second, the broadcast was
involving certain offensive utterances conveyed in aired at the time of the day when there was a
different mediums has emerged, this case is veritably reasonable risk that children might be in the audience;
one of first impression, it being the first time that and third, petitioner uttered his speech on a "G" or "for
indecent speech communicated via television and the general patronage" rated program. Under Sec. 2(A) of
applicable norm for its regulation are, in this Chapter IV of the IRR of the MTRCB, a show for general
jurisdiction, made the focal point. Federal patronage is "[s]uitable for all ages," meaning that the
Communications Commission  (FCC)  v. Pacifica "material for television x x x in the judgment of the
Page 6 of 13
BOARD, does not contain anything unsuitable for disaster.50 As we observed in Eastern Broadcasting
children and minors, and may be viewed without adult Corporation, the clear and present danger test "does
guidance or supervision." The words petitioner used not lend itself to a simplistic and all embracing
were, by any civilized norm, clearly not suitable for interpretation applicable to all utterances in all
children. Where a language is categorized as indecent, forums."51
as in petitioner’s utterances on a general-patronage
rated TV program, it may be readily proscribed as To be sure, the clear and present danger doctrine is not
unprotected speech. the only test which has been applied by the courts.
Generally, said doctrine is applied to cases involving the
A view has been advanced that unprotected speech overthrow of the government and even other evils
refers only to pornography,43 false or misleading which do not clearly undermine national security. Since
advertisement,44 advocacy of imminent lawless action, not all evils can be measured in terms of "proximity and
and expression endangering national security. But this degree" the Court, however, in several cases—Ayer
list is not, as some members of the Court would submit, Productions v. Capulong52 and Gonzales v.
53
exclusive or carved in stone. Without going into COMELEC,  applied the balancing of interests test.
specifics, it may be stated without fear of contradiction Former Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, in Gonzales v.
that US decisional law goes beyond the aforesaid COMELEC, elucidated in his Separate Opinion that
general exceptions. As the Court has been impelled to "where the legislation under constitutional attack
recognize exceptions to the rule against censorship in interferes with the freedom of speech and assembly in a
the past, this particular case constitutes yet another more generalized way and where the effect of the
exception, another instance of unprotected speech, speech and assembly in terms of the probability of
created by the necessity of protecting the welfare of realization of a specific danger is not susceptible even of
our children. As unprotected speech, petitioner’s impressionistic calculation,"54 then the "balancing of
utterances can be subjected to restraint or regulation. interests" test can be applied.

Despite the settled ruling in FCC which has remained The Court explained also in Gonzales v. COMELEC the
undisturbed since 1978, petitioner asserts that his "balancing of interests" test:
utterances must present a clear and present danger of
bringing about a substantive evil the State has a right When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of
and duty to prevent and such danger must be grave and public order, and the regulation results in an indirect,
imminent.45 conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of
the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting
Petitioner’s invocation of the clear and present danger interests demands the greater protection under the
doctrine, arguably the most permissive of speech tests, particular circumstances presented. x x x We must,
would not avail him any relief, for the application of said therefore, undertake the "delicate and difficult task x x x
test is uncalled for under the premises. The doctrine, to weigh the circumstances and to appraise the
first formulated by Justice Holmes, accords protection substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the
for utterances so that the printed or spoken words may regulation of the free enjoyment of rights x x x.
not be subject to prior restraint or subsequent
punishment unless its expression creates a clear and In enunciating standard premised on a judicial balancing
present danger of bringing about a substantial evil of the conflicting social values and individual interests
which the government has the power to competing for ascendancy in legislation which restricts
prohibit.46 Under the doctrine, freedom of speech and expression, the court in Douds laid the basis for what
of press is susceptible of restriction when and only has been called the "balancing-of-interests" test which
when necessary to prevent grave and immediate danger has found application in more recent decisions of the
to interests which the government may lawfully protect. U.S. Supreme Court. Briefly stated, the "balancing" test
As it were, said doctrine evolved in the context of requires a court to take conscious and detailed
prosecutions for rebellion and other crimes involving consideration of the interplay of interests observable in
the overthrow of government.47 It was originally a given situation or type of situation.
designed to determine the latitude which should be
given to speech that espouses anti-government action, xxxx
or to have serious and substantial deleterious
consequences on the security and public order of the Although the urgency of the public interest sought to be
community.48 The clear and present danger rule has secured by Congressional power restricting the
been applied to this jurisdiction.49 As a standard of individual’s freedom, and the social importance and
limitation on free speech and press, however, the clear value of the freedom so restricted, "are to be judged in
and present danger test is not a magic incantation that the concrete, not on the basis of abstractions," a wide
wipes out all problems and does away with analysis and range of factors are necessarily relevant in ascertaining
judgment in the testing of the legitimacy of claims to the point or line of equilibrium. Among these are (a) the
free speech and which compels a court to release a social value and importance of the specific aspect of the
defendant from liability the moment the doctrine is particular freedom restricted by the legislation; (b) the
invoked, absent proof of imminent catastrophic
Page 7 of 13
specific thrust of the restriction, i.e., whether the The Constitution has, therefore, imposed the sacred
restriction is direct or indirect, whether or not the obligation and responsibility on the State to provide
persons affected are few; (c) the value and importance protection to the youth against illegal or improper
of the public interest sought to be secured by the activities which may prejudice their general well-being.
legislation––the reference here is to the nature and The Article on youth, approved on second reading by
gravity of the evil which Congress seeks to prevent; (d) the Constitutional Commission, explained that the State
whether the specific restriction decreed by Congress is shall "extend social protection to minors against all
reasonably appropriate and necessary for the forms of neglect, cruelty, exploitation, immorality, and
protection of such public interest; and (e) whether the practices which may foster racial, religious or other
necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved forms of discrimination."58
may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive
of the protected freedom.55 Indisputably, the State has a compelling interest in
extending social protection to minors against all forms
This balancing of interest test, to borrow from Professor of neglect, exploitation, and immorality which may
Kauper,56 rests on the theory that it is the court’s pollute innocent minds. It has a compelling interest in
function in a case before it when it finds public interests helping parents, through regulatory mechanisms,
served by legislation, on the one hand, and the free protect their children’s minds from exposure to
expression clause affected by it, on the other, to undesirable materials and corrupting experiences. The
balance one against the other and arrive at a judgment Constitution, no less, in fact enjoins the State, as earlier
where the greater weight shall be placed. If, on balance, indicated, to promote and protect the physical, moral,
it appears that the public interest served by restrictive spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being of the youth
legislation is of such nature that it outweighs the to better prepare them fulfill their role in the field of
abridgment of freedom, then the court will find the nation-building.59 In the same way, the State is
legislation valid. In short, the balance-of-interests mandated to support parents in the rearing of the
theory rests on the basis that constitutional freedoms youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral
are not absolute, not even those stated in the free character.60
speech and expression clause, and that they may be
abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and Petitioner’s offensive and obscene language uttered in a
important interests.57 To the mind of the Court, the television broadcast, without doubt, was easily
balancing of interest doctrine is the more appropriate accessible to the children. His statements could have
test to follow. exposed children to a language that is unacceptable in
everyday use. As such, the welfare of children and the
In the case at bar, petitioner used indecent and obscene State’s mandate to protect and care for them, as parens
language and a three (3)-month suspension was slapped patriae,61 constitute a substantial and compelling
on him for breach of MTRCB rules. In this setting, the government interest in regulating petitioner’s
assertion by petitioner of his enjoyment of his freedom utterances in TV broadcast as provided in PD 1986.
of speech is ranged against the duty of the government
to protect and promote the development and welfare FCC explains the duty of the government to act as
of the youth. parens patriae to protect the children who, because of
age or interest capacity, are susceptible of being
After a careful examination of the factual milieu and the corrupted or prejudiced by offensive language, thus:
arguments raised by petitioner in support of his claim to
free speech, the Court rules that the government’s [B]roadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even
interest to protect and promote the interests and those too young to read. Although Cohen’s written
welfare of the children adequately buttresses the message, ["Fuck the Draft"], might have been
reasonable curtailment and valid restraint on incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacifica’s broadcast
petitioner’s prayer to continue as program host of Ang could have enlarged a child’s vocabulary in an instant.
Dating Daan during the suspension period. Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld
from the young without restricting the expression at its
No doubt, one of the fundamental and most vital rights source. Bookstores and motion picture theaters, for
granted to citizens of a State is the freedom of speech example, may be prohibited from making indecent
or expression, for without the enjoyment of such right, material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v.
a free, stable, effective, and progressive democratic New York that the government’s interest in the "well-
state would be difficult to attain. Arrayed against the being of its youth" and in supporting "parents’ claim to
freedom of speech is the right of the youth to their authority in their own household" justified the
moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social being which the regulation of otherwise protected expression. The ease
State is constitutionally tasked to promote and protect. with which children may obtain access to broadcast
Moreover, the State is also mandated to recognize and material, coupled with the concerns recognized in
support the vital role of the youth in nation building as Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent
laid down in Sec. 13, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. broadcasting.

Page 8 of 13
Moreover, Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak likewise stressed Ergo, petitioner’s offensive and indecent language can
the duty of the State to attend to the welfare of the be subjected to prior restraint.
young:
Petitioner theorizes that the three (3)-month
x x x It is the consensus of this Court that where suspension is either prior restraint or subsequent
television is concerned, a less liberal approach calls for punishment that, however, includes prior restraint,
observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures albeit indirectly.
where the patrons have to pay their way, television
reaches every home where there is a set. Children then After a review of the facts, the Court finds that what
will likely will be among the avid viewers of the MTRCB imposed on petitioner is an administrative
programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit sanction or subsequent punishment for his offensive
Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is hardly the and obscene language in Ang Dating Daan.
concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of
the adult population. It cannot be denied though that To clarify, statutes imposing prior restraints on speech
the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an are generally illegal and presumed unconstitutional
attitude of caring for the welfare of the young.62 breaches of the freedom of speech. The exceptions to
prior restraint are movies, television, and radio
The compelling need to protect the young impels us to broadcast censorship in view of its access to numerous
sustain the regulatory action MTRCB took in the narrow people, including the young who must be insulated
confines of the case. To reiterate, FCC justified the from the prejudicial effects of unprotected speech. PD
restraint on the TV broadcast grounded on the 1986 was passed creating the Board of Review for
following considerations: (1) the use of television with Motion Pictures and Television (now MTRCB) and which
its unique accessibility to children, as a medium of requires prior permit or license before showing a
broadcast of a patently offensive speech; (2) the time of motion picture or broadcasting a TV program. The
broadcast; and (3) the "G" rating of the Ang Dating Daan Board can classify movies and television programs and
program. And in agreeing with MTRCB, the court takes can cancel permits for exhibition of films or television
stock of and cites with approval the following excerpts [Link]
from FCC:
The power of MTRCB to regulate and even impose some
It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the prior restraint on radio and television shows, even
narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a religious programs, was upheld in Iglesia Ni Cristo v.
two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a Court of Appeals. Speaking through Chief Justice
dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We Reynato S. Puno, the Court wrote:
have not decided that an occasional expletive in either
setting would justify any sanction. x x x The [FFC’s] We thus reject petitioner’s postulate that its religious
decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under program is per se beyond review by the respondent
which context is all important. The concept requires Board. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious
consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief.
emphasized by the [FFC]. The content of the program in Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and
which the language is used will affect the composition ears of children. The Court iterates the rule that the
of the audience x x x. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote a exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the
‘nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong State when it will bring about the clear and present
place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.’ danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty
We simply hold that when the [FCC] finds that a pig has bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more
entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power overriding interest of public health, public morals, or
does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene. public welfare. x x x
(Citation omitted.)
xxxx
There can be no quibbling that the remarks in question
petitioner uttered on prime-time television are blatantly While the thesis has a lot to commend itself, we are not
indecent if not outright obscene. It is the kind of speech ready to hold that [PD 1986] is unconstitutional for
that PD 1986 proscribes necessitating the exercise by Congress to grant an administrative body quasi-judicial
MTRCB of statutory disciplinary powers. It is the kind of power to preview and classify TV programs and enforce
speech that the State has the inherent prerogative, nay its decision subject to review by our courts. As far back
duty, to regulate and prevent should such action served as 1921, we upheld this setup in Sotto vs. Ruiz, viz:
and further compelling state interests. One who utters
indecent, insulting, or offensive words on television "The use of the mails by private persons is in the nature
when unsuspecting children are in the audience is, in of a privilege which can be regulated in order to avoid
the graphic language of FCC, a "pig in the parlor." Public its abuse. Persons possess no absolute right to put into
interest would be served if the "pig" is reasonably the mail anything they please, regardless of its
restrained or even removed from the "parlor." character."63

Page 9 of 13
Bernas adds: More importantly, petitioner is deemed to have yielded
his right to his full enjoyment of his freedom of speech
Under the decree a movie classification board is made to regulation under PD 1986 and its IRR as television
the arbiter of what movies and television programs or station owners, program producers, and hosts have
parts of either are fit for public consumption. It decides impliedly accepted the power of MTRCB to regulate the
what movies are "immoral, indecent, contrary to law broadcast industry.
and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the
Republic of the Philippines or its people," and what Neither can petitioner’s virtual inability to speak in his
"tend to incite subversion, insurrection, rebellion or program during the period of suspension be plausibly
sedition," or "tend to undermine the faith and treated as prior restraint on future speech. For viewed
confidence of the people in their government and/or in its proper perspective, the suspension is in the nature
duly constituted authorities," etc. Moreover, its of an intermediate penalty for uttering an unprotected
decisions are executory unless stopped by a court.64 form of speech. It is definitely a lesser punishment than
the permissible cancellation of exhibition or broadcast
Moreover, in MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting permit or license. In fine, the suspension meted was
Corporation,65 it was held that the power of review and simply part of the duties of the MTRCB in the
prior approval of MTRCB extends to all television enforcement and administration of the law which it is
programs and is valid despite the freedom of speech tasked to implement. Viewed in its proper context, the
guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, all broadcast suspension sought to penalize past speech made on
networks are regulated by the MTRCB since they are prime-time "G" rated TV program; it does not bar future
required to get a permit before they air their television speech of petitioner in other television programs; it is a
programs. Consequently, their right to enjoy their permissible subsequent administrative sanction; it
freedom of speech is subject to that requirement. As should not be confused with a prior restraint on speech.
lucidly explained by Justice Dante O. Tinga, government While not on all fours, the Court, in MTRCB,66 sustained
regulations through the MTRCB became "a necessary the power of the MTRCB to penalize a broadcast
evil" with the government taking the role of assigning company for exhibiting/airing a pre-taped TV episode
bandwidth to individual broadcasters. The stations without Board authorization in violation of Sec. 7 of PD
explicitly agreed to this regulatory scheme; otherwise, 1986.
chaos would result in the television broadcast industry
as competing broadcasters will interfere or co-opt each Any simplistic suggestion, however, that the MTRCB
other’s signals. In this scheme, station owners and would be crossing the limits of its authority were it to
broadcasters in effect waived their right to the full regulate and even restrain the prime-time television
enjoyment of their right to freedom of speech in radio broadcast of indecent or obscene speech in a "G" rated
and television programs and impliedly agreed that said program is not acceptable. As made clear in Eastern
right may be subject to prior restraint—denial of permit Broadcasting Corporation, "the freedom of television
or subsequent punishment, like suspension or and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope
cancellation of permit, among others. than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print
media." The MTRCB, as a regulatory agency, must have
The three (3) months suspension in this case is not a the wherewithal to enforce its mandate, which would
prior restraint on the right of petitioner to continue not be effective if its punitive actions would be limited
with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as a permit was to mere fines. Television broadcasts should be subject
already issued to him by MTRCB for such broadcast. to some form of regulation, considering the ease with
Rather, the suspension is in the form of permissible which they can be accessed, and violations of the
administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for regulations must be met with appropriate and
the offensive and obscene remarks he uttered on the proportional disciplinary action. The suspension of a
evening of August 10, 2004 in his television program, violating television program would be a sufficient
Ang Dating Daan. It is a sanction that the MTRCB may punishment and serve as a deterrent for those
validly impose under its charter without running afoul responsible. The prevention of the broadcast of
of the free speech clause. And the imposition is petitioner’s television program is justified, and does not
separate and distinct from the criminal action the Board constitute prohibited prior restraint. It behooves the
may take pursuant to Sec. 3(i) of PD 1986 and the Court to respond to the needs of the changing times,
remedies that may be availed of by the aggrieved and craft jurisprudence to reflect these times.
private party under the provisions on libel or tort, if
applicable. As FCC teaches, the imposition of sanctions Petitioner, in questioning the three-month suspension,
on broadcasters who indulge in profane or indecent also tags as unconstitutional the very law creating the
broadcasting does not constitute forbidden censorship. MTRCB, arguing that PD 1986, as applied to him,
Lest it be overlooked, the sanction imposed is not per se infringes also upon his freedom of religion. The Court
for petitioner’s exercise of his freedom of speech via has earlier adequately explained why petitioner’s undue
television, but for the indecent contents of his reliance on the religious freedom cannot lend
utterances in a "G" rated TV program. justification, let alone an exempting dimension to his
licentious utterances in his program. The Court sees no
need to address anew the repetitive arguments on
Page 10 of 13
religious freedom. As earlier discussed in the disposition To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be
of the petition in G.R. No. 164785, what was uttered a standard, which implies at the very least that the
was in no way a religious speech. Parenthetically, legislature itself determines matters of principle and
petitioner’s attempt to characterize his speech as a lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of
legitimate defense of his religion fails miserably. He complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard
tries to place his words in perspective, arguing evidently thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out
as an afterthought that this was his method of refuting its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply
the alleged distortion of his statements by the INC hosts it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
of Ang Tamang Daan. But on the night he uttered them legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion
in his television program, the word simply came out as by which legislative purpose may be carried out.
profane language, without any warning or guidance for Thereafter, the executive or administrative office
undiscerning ears. designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines
promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.67
As to petitioner’s other argument about having been
denied due process and equal protection of the law, Based on the foregoing pronouncements and analyzing
suffice it to state that we have at length debunked the law in question, petitioner’s protestation about
similar arguments in G.R. No. 164785. There is no need undue delegation of legislative power for the sole
to further delve into the fact that petitioner was reason that PD 1986 does not provide for a range of
afforded due process when he attended the hearing of penalties for violation of the law is untenable. His thesis
the MTRCB, and that he was unable to demonstrate is that MTRCB, in promulgating the IRR of PD 1986,
that he was unjustly discriminated against in the MTRCB prescribing a schedule of penalties for violation of the
proceedings. provisions of the decree, went beyond the terms of the
law.
Finally, petitioner argues that there has been undue
delegation of legislative power, as PD 1986 does not Petitioner’s posture is flawed by the erroneous
provide for the range of imposable penalties that may assumptions holding it together, the first assumption
be applied with respect to violations of the provisions of being that PD 1986 does not prescribe the imposition
the law. of, or authorize the MTRCB to impose, penalties for
violators of PD 1986. As earlier indicated, however, the
The argument is without merit. MTRCB, by express and direct conferment of power and
functions, is charged with supervising and regulating,
In Edu v. Ericta, the Court discussed the matter of undue granting, denying, or canceling permits for the
delegation of legislative power in the following wise: exhibition and/or television broadcast of all motion
pictures, television programs, and publicity materials to
It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine the end that no such objectionable pictures, programs,
of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate and materials shall be exhibited and/or broadcast by
its legislative power to the two other branches of the television. Complementing this provision is Sec. 3(k) of
government, subject to the exception that local the decree authorizing the MTRCB "to exercise such
governments may over local affairs participate in its powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental
exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority to the attainment of the purpose and objectives of [the
under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and law]." As earlier explained, the investiture of
repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute supervisory, regulatory, and disciplinary power would
in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of surely be a meaningless grant if it did not carry with it
the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an the power to penalize the supervised or the regulated
undue delegation of legislative power, the inquiry must as may be proportionate to the offense committed,
be directed to the scope and definiteness of the charged, and proved. As the Court said in Chavez v.
measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its National Housing Authority:
functions when it describes what job must be done,
who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. x x x [W]hen a general grant of power is conferred or
For a complex economy, that may indeed be the only duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the
way in which the legislative process can go forward. A exercise of the one or the performance of the other is
distinction has rightfully been made between delegation also conferred. x x x [W]hen the statute does not specify
of power to make laws which necessarily involves a the particular method to be followed or used by a
discretion as to what it shall be, which constitutionally government agency in the exercise of the power vested
may not be done, and delegation of authority or in it by law, said agency has the authority to adopt any
discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and reasonable method to carry out its function.68
in pursuance of the law, to which no valid objection can
be made. The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as Given the foregoing perspective, it stands to reason that
denying the legislature the necessary resources of the power of the MTRCB to regulate and supervise the
flexibility and practicability. exhibition of TV programs carries with it or necessarily
implies the authority to take effective punitive action

Page 11 of 13
for violation of the law sought to be enforced. And difficulty of administering the law."71 Allowing the
would it not be logical too to say that the power to deny MTRCB some reasonable elbow-room in its operations
or cancel a permit for the exhibition of a TV program or and, in the exercise of its statutory disciplinary
broadcast necessarily includes the lesser power to functions, according it ample latitude in fixing, by way of
suspend? an appropriate issuance, administrative penalties with
due regard for the severity of the offense and attending
The MTRCB promulgated the IRR of PD 1986 in mitigating or aggravating circumstances, as the case
accordance with Sec. 3(a) which, for reference, provides may be, would be consistent with its mandate to
that agency with the power "[to] promulgate such rules effectively and efficiently regulate the movie and
and regulations as are necessary or proper for the television industry.
implementation of this Act, and the accomplishment of
its purposes and objectives x x x." And Chapter XIII, Sec. But even as we uphold the power of the MTRCB to
1 of the IRR providing: review and impose sanctions for violations of PD 1986,
its decision to suspend petitioner must be modified, for
Section 1. VIOLATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE nowhere in that issuance, particularly the power-
SANCTIONS.––Without prejudice to the immediate filing defining Sec. 3 nor in the MTRCB Schedule of
of the appropriate criminal action and the immediate Administrative Penalties effective January 1, 1999 is the
seizure of the pertinent articles pursuant to Section 13, Board empowered to suspend the program host or even
any violation of PD 1986 and its Implementing Rules and to prevent certain people from appearing in television
Regulations governing motion pictures, television programs. The MTRCB, to be sure, may prohibit the
programs, and related promotional materials shall be broadcast of such television programs or cancel permits
penalized with suspension or cancellation of permits for exhibition, but it may not suspend television
and/or licenses issued by the Board and/or with the personalities, for such would be beyond its jurisdiction.
imposition of fines and other administrative The MTRCB cannot extend its exercise of regulation
penalty/penalties. The Board recognizes the existing beyond what the law provides. Only persons, offenses,
Table of Administrative Penalties attached without and penalties clearly falling clearly within the letter and
prejudice to the power of the Board to amend it when spirit of PD 1986 will be considered to be within the
the need arises. In the meantime the existing revised decree’s penal or disciplinary operation. And when it
Table of Administrative Penalties shall be enforced. exists, the reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor
(Emphasis added.) of the person charged with violating the statute and for
whom the penalty is sought. Thus, the MTRCB’s
This is, in the final analysis, no more than a measure to decision in Administrative Case No. 01-04 dated
specifically implement the aforequoted provisions of September 27, 2004 and the subsequent order issued
Sec. 3(d) and (k). Contrary to what petitioner implies, pursuant to said decision must be modified. The
the IRR does not expand the mandate of the MTRCB suspension should cover only the television program on
under the law or partake of the nature of an which petitioner appeared and uttered the offensive
unauthorized administrative legislation. The MTRCB and obscene language, which sanction is what the law
cannot shirk its responsibility to regulate the public and the facts obtaining call for.
airwaves and employ such means as it can as a guardian
of the public. In ending, what petitioner obviously advocates is an
unrestricted speech paradigm in which absolute
In Sec. 3(c), one can already find the permissible actions permissiveness is the norm. Petitioner’s flawed belief
of the MTRCB, along with the standards to be applied to that he may simply utter gutter profanity on television
determine whether there have been statutory without adverse consequences, under the guise of free
breaches. The MTRCB may evaluate motion pictures, speech, does not lend itself to acceptance in this
television programs, and publicity materials "applying jurisdiction. We repeat: freedoms of speech and
contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard," and, expression are not absolute freedoms. To say "any act
from there, determine whether these audio and video that restrains speech should be greeted with furrowed
materials "are objectionable for being immoral, brows" is not to say that any act that restrains or
indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, [etc.] x regulates speech or expression is per se invalid. This
x x" and apply the sanctions it deems proper. The only recognizes the importance of freedoms of speech
lawmaking body cannot possibly provide for all the and expression, and indicates the necessity to carefully
details in the enforcement of a particular statute.69 The scrutinize acts that may restrain or regulate speech.
grant of the rule-making power to administrative
agencies is a relaxation of the principle of separation of WHEREFORE, the decision of the MTRCB in Adm. Case
powers and is an exception to the non-delegation of No. 01-04 dated September 27, 2004 is hereby
legislative powers.70 Administrative regulations or AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of limiting the
"subordinate legislation" calculated to promote the suspension to the program Ang Dating Daan. As thus
public interest are necessary because of "the growing modified, the fallo of the MTRCB shall read as follows:
complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the
subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased

Page 12 of 13
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, a Decision is
hereby rendered, imposing a penalty of THREE (3)
MONTHS SUSPENSION on the television program, Ang
Dating Daan, subject of the instant petition.

Co-respondents Joselito Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz, and

UNTV Channel 37 and its owner, PBC, are hereby
exonerated for lack of evidence.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

Page 13 of 13