The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has the authority, derived from PD 1986, to regulate television program content, including the power to impose preventive suspension and subsequent administrative sanctions like program suspension, when such content is deemed obscene or indecent, especially considering the pervasive nature of television and its accessibility to children; such regulation, when balanced against the State's compelling interest in protecting the youth, does not unconstitutionally abridge freedom of speech.

Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, as host of the television program "Ang Dating Daan" aired on UNTV 37, made remarks on August 10, 2004, which included profane and offensive language directed at Michael M. Sandoval, a minister of Iglesia ni Cristo and host of a rival TV program. These utterances prompted complaints filed with the MTRCB by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, leading to the challenged regulatory actions by the MTRCB.

• On August 10, 2004, petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, host of the UNTV 37 program "Ang Dating Daan," made remarks including: "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."
• Complaints were filed with the MTRCB by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), including Michael M. Sandoval, who felt alluded to by the remarks.
• On August 16, 2004, after a preliminary conference, the MTRCB issued an order preventively suspending "Ang Dating Daan" for 20 days, citing Section 3(d) of PD 1986 and its IRR.
• Soriano filed a petition (G.R. No. 164785) with the Supreme Court challenging this preventive suspension.
• On September 27, 2004, the MTRCB rendered a decision in Adm. Case No. 01-04, finding Soriano liable for his utterances and imposing a three-month suspension from his program "Ang Dating Daan."
• Soriano filed another petition (G.R. No. 165636) with the Supreme Court challenging the three-month suspension.
• The two petitions were consolidated by the Supreme Court.

• The MTRCB's preventive suspension order was null and void for being issued with grave abuse of discretion, as PD 1986 does not expressly authorize preventive suspension, and the IRR provision for it is invalid.
• The petitioner was denied due hearing before the issuance of the preventive suspension.
• The MTRCB's actions violated the petitioner's rights to equal protection, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 3(c) of PD 1986 is unconstitutional as applied, infringing on freedom of religion, speech, expression, due process, and equal protection, and partakes of subsequent punishment.
• PD 1986 is an undue delegation of legislative power because it does not provide for penalties for violations, rendering the IRR and MTRCB actions infirm.
• The three-month suspension constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech and expression and an impermissible prior restraint.

• The MTRCB acted within its powers and functions under PD 1986 to supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel permits for television broadcasts to prevent objectionable materials.
• The power to issue preventive suspension is implied from MTRCB's regulatory and supervisory mandate and is necessary for the exercise of its power of regulation.
• The petitioner's utterances were obscene and indecent, especially considering the "G" rating of the program and its accessibility to children, thus constituting unprotected speech.
• The State has a compelling interest to protect children from offensive and obscene language on television.
• The suspension imposed was a permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for the offensive utterances, not an unconstitutional prior restraint.
• PD 1986 provides sufficient standards, and the MTRCB's IRR, including the schedule of penalties, is a valid exercise of its rule-making power.

• Whether the MTRCB has the power to issue a preventive suspension order against a television program.
• Whether the MTRCB's preventive suspension order and subsequent three-month suspension order violated petitioner's rights to due process, equal protection, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech and expression.
• Whether Section 3(c) of PD 1986 is unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner.
• Whether PD 1986 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power for not specifying penalties for its violation.
• Whether the three-month suspension imposed on petitioner is a form of prior restraint or a permissible subsequent punishment.

• The MTRCB has the implied power to issue preventive suspension orders as part of its regulatory and supervisory functions under PD 1986 to prevent further violations pending investigation; this power is formalized in its IRR.
• Petitioner was not denied due process as he appeared before the MTRCB before the preventive suspension was issued; preventive suspension can even be meted out without a hearing.
• There was no violation of the equal protection clause as petitioner was not similarly situated with INC ministers who were not facing complaints before the MTRCB, nor was there proof of similar language used by them.
• Petitioner's utterances did not constitute religious speech protected by the freedom of religion; they were plain insults moved by anger, not religious conviction.
• Petitioner's utterances ("Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae") were deemed obscene and unprotected speech, especially considering they were aired on a "G" rated program accessible to children.
• The Court applied the balancing-of-interests test, weighing petitioner's freedom of speech against the State's compelling interest to protect the welfare of children from indecent language on television, finding the latter to be paramount.
• The three-month suspension was a permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for petitioner's past offensive utterances, not an unconstitutional prior restraint on future speech; television broadcasters are deemed to have yielded some freedom to regulation.
• PD 1986 does not involve an undue delegation of legislative power; it provides sufficient standards for the MTRCB to implement, and the power to regulate implies the power to penalize, with the IRR validly providing for such penalties.
• The MTRCB decision was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, limiting the suspension to the program "Ang Dating Daan" rather than suspending petitioner Soriano from appearing on television altogether, as MTRCB's power does not extend to suspending personalities.

• Implied Powers of Administrative Agencies — Administrative agencies possess powers expressly conferred by law and those necessarily implied in the exercise of such express powers. Applied here to affirm MTRCB's authority to issue preventive suspension orders as incidental to its regulatory and supervisory functions under PD 1986, even if not explicitly stated in the decree.
• Preventive Suspension is Not a Penalty — Preventive suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation, not a punishment in itself. This was used to justify the MTRCB's initial 20-day suspension of the program "Ang Dating Daan" pending investigation.
• Equal Protection Clause — Requires that all persons subject to legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. The Court found no violation as petitioner was not similarly situated with others he cited.
• Freedom of Religious Profession and Worship — Guarantees the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference. The Court held petitioner's offensive utterances were not religious speech and thus not protected under this clause.
• Freedom of Speech and Expression (Not Absolute) — Guarantees the right to freely utter and publish whatever one pleases without previous restraint, and to be protected against any responsibility for so doing, except so far as such rights may be abused. The Court reiterated that this freedom is not absolute and can be regulated, especially for broadcast media which enjoys lesser protection.
• Unprotected Speech (Obscenity/Indecency) — Certain classes of speech, such as obscenity, are not protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The Court classified petitioner's language as obscene/indecent, particularly in the context of a "G" rated TV program accessible to children, thus rendering it unprotected.
• Prior Restraint vs. Subsequent Punishment — Prior restraint refers to official government restrictions on expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination, while subsequent punishment refers to sanctions imposed after the expression has been made. The Court characterized the three-month suspension as a permissible subsequent punishment for past unprotected speech, not an unconstitutional prior restraint on future speech.
• Clear and Present Danger Test — A test for evaluating restrictions on free speech, where speech may be restrained only if it creates a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. The Court found this test uncalled for in this case, opting for the balancing of interests test due to the nature of the speech and the medium.
• Balancing of Interests Test — A standard where the court weighs the conflicting social values and individual interests to determine which demands greater protection. The Court used this to weigh petitioner's free speech against the State's compelling interest in protecting children's welfare, finding the latter to be preponderant.
• Parens Patriae — Refers to the State's role as guardian of persons under legal disability, such as minors. The Court invoked this doctrine to emphasize the State's compelling interest and duty to protect children from harmful influences, such as indecent language on television.
• Undue Delegation of Legislative Power — Occurs when the legislature transfers its legislative power to another branch or agency without providing a sufficient standard to guide the delegate. The Court found no undue delegation in PD 1986, as it provides sufficient standards for the MTRCB to implement its regulatory functions, including the imposition of penalties through its IRR.
• Police Power — The inherent power of the State to enact laws and regulations to promote the health, safety, morals, order, comfort, and general welfare of the people. The MTRCB's regulation of television content is an exercise of police power.

• "The freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights, is, however, not absolute. It may be regulated to some extent to serve important public interests, some forms of speech not being protected."
• "Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious speech."
• "Where a language is categorized as indecent, as in petitioner's utterances on a general-patronage rated TV program, it may be readily proscribed as unprotected speech."
• "As the Court has been impelled to recognize exceptions to the rule against censorship in the past, this particular case constitutes yet another exception, another instance of unprotected speech, created by the necessity of protecting the welfare of our children."
• "In the case at bar, petitioner used indecent and obscene language and a three (3)-month suspension was slapped on him for breach of MTRCB rules. In this setting, the assertion by petitioner of his enjoyment of his freedom of speech is ranged against the duty of the government to protect and promote the development and welfare of the youth."
• "The three (3) months suspension in this case is not a prior restraint on the right of petitioner to continue with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan... Rather, the suspension is in the form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for the offensive and obscene remarks he uttered..."
• "The MTRCB cannot extend its exercise of regulation beyond what the law provides. Only persons, offenses, and penalties clearly falling clearly within the letter and spirit of PD 1986 will be considered to be within the decree's penal or disciplinary operation."

• Angara v. Electoral Commission — Cited for the principle that when a general grant of power is conferred or a duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for its exercise or performance is also conferred by necessary implication; relevant to MTRCB's implied power for preventive suspension.
• Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire — Cited for identifying certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech (like "fighting words") that are not protected by the Constitution.
• Miller v. California — Cited for establishing basic guidelines for determining obscenity, which involves considering contemporary community standards, patently offensive depictions of sexual conduct, and lack of serious value.
• FCC v. Pacifica Foundation — A landmark U.S. case cited extensively for its reasoning on regulating indecent speech on broadcast media, especially due to its pervasive nature and unique accessibility to children. This case heavily influenced the Court's analysis of unprotected speech and the State's interest in protecting minors.
• Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr. — Cited for the principle that broadcast media enjoys a lesser degree of free speech protection compared to print media, and that the clear and present danger test may not be universally applicable to all utterances.
• Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak — Cited for the observation that television easily reaches homes where children are likely viewers, supporting the need for stricter regulation concerning content accessible to minors.
• Ayer Productions v. Capulong and Gonzales v. COMELEC — Cited as instances where the Supreme Court applied the balancing of interests test instead of the clear and present danger test for free speech issues.
• Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals — Upheld MTRCB's power to review and classify TV programs, even religious ones, when public broadcast is involved, and that religious freedom can be regulated to prevent substantive evil to public morals or welfare.
• MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation — Affirmed MTRCB's power of review and prior approval over all television programs, including the authority to penalize for violations.
• Edu v. Ericta — Discussed the principles of undue delegation of legislative power, emphasizing the need for a sufficient standard when delegating authority.
• Chavez v. National Housing Authority — Cited for the principle that a general grant of power includes all necessary particular powers, and an agency can adopt reasonable methods to carry out its functions if the statute is silent on the method.

• Presidential Decree No. 1986 (PD 1986), Section 3(c) — Empowers the MTRCB to approve/disapprove, delete objectionable portions, or prohibit television broadcasts that are immoral, indecent, contrary to law/good customs, etc., applying contemporary Filipino cultural values. This was the primary legal basis for MTRCB's actions.
• Presidential Decree No. 1986 (PD 1986), Section 3(d) — Empowers the MTRCB to supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel permits for television broadcasts to ensure no objectionable materials are aired. Cited as the basis for MTRCB's power, including preventive suspension.
• Presidential Decree No. 1986 (PD 1986), Section 3(k) — Grants MTRCB the power to exercise such other powers and functions necessary or incidental to attain its objectives. This was invoked to support MTRCB's implied powers.
• MTRCB Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986, Chapter XIII, Sec. 3 — Provides for the issuance of a Preventive Suspension Order by the MTRCB Chairman. The Court upheld this IRR provision as formalizing an implied power.
• MTRCB Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986, Chapter IV, Sec. 2(A) — Defines a "G" (General Patronage) rated program as suitable for all ages and not containing anything unsuitable for children. This was relevant to the context of petitioner's indecent speech.
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4 (Freedom of Speech) — "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press..." Petitioner claimed violation of this right.
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 5 (Freedom of Religion) — "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Petitioner claimed his speech was religious.
• 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 13 (Role of Youth) — States that the State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their well-being. This supported the State's compelling interest in regulating TV content.
• 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 12 (Natural and primary right and duty of parents) — States that the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. This also supported the State's compelling interest.

• Justice Dante O. Tinga — Emphasized that the three-month suspension was primarily subsequent punishment for obscene remarks, not prior restraint. He highlighted that broadcast media enjoys a lesser degree of protection than other media due to the scarcity of airwaves (owned by the State) and the privilege granted to broadcasters, who accede to regulation. Suspension is an apt penalty for offending State prerogatives in broadcasting.
• Justice Renato C. Corona — Stated that free speech is not absolute and is limited by other fundamental rights and the principle of abuse of rights. He argued that broadcast media is a public trust, and the rights of viewers (to dignity, privacy, and protection of youth) are paramount. He affirmed MTRCB's implied power to suspend programs or hosts for violations, viewing the petitioner's utterances as indecent and offensive, justifying the MTRCB's action to protect viewers, especially children.

• Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno — (Mentioned as "see dissent" but specific points not detailed in the main text provided for analysis, beyond joining J. Carpio's dissent).
• Justice Antonio T. Carpio — Argued that the three-month suspension of petitioner's TV program constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression, barring any speech on the program regardless of content. He contended that the remedy for offensive language is subsequent punishment (e.g., libel or tort cases), not a gag order on future expression. He asserted that prior restraint is permissible only in very narrow exceptions (pornography, false advertising, imminent lawless action, national security danger), none of which applied, and the government failed to meet the heavy burden of justifying it under the clear and present danger test.