FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

SORIANO v MTRCB

Facts:

Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, a television evangelist, hosted the Ang Dating Daan, a popular
television ministry aired nationwide everyday from 10:00 p.m. to midnight over public
television. The program carried a "general patronage" rating from the Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). The Ang Dating Daan’s rivalry with another
religious television program, the Iglesia ni Cristo’s Ang Tamang Daan, is well known. The hosts
of the two shows have regularly engaged in verbal sparring on air, hurling accusations and
counter-accusations with respect to their opposing religious beliefs and practices. Thus, Michael
and seven other ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo lodged a complaint against petitioner Soriano
before the MTRCB. Acting swiftly, the latter preventively suspended the airing of Soriano’s
Ang Dating Daan television program for 20 days, pursuant to its powers under Section 3(d) of
Presidential Decree 1986 and its related rules. Petitioner Soriano challenged the validity of that
preventive suspension before this Court in G.R. 164785. Meanwhile, after hearing the main case
or on September 27, 2004, the MTRCB found Soriano guilty as charged and imposed on him a
penalty of three months suspension from appearing on the Ang Dating Daan program. Soriano
thus filed a second petition in G.R. 165636 to question that decision. The Court consolidated the
two cases. On April 29, 2009 the Court rendered a decision, upholding MTRCB’s power to
impose preventive suspension and affirming its decision against petitioner Soriano with the
modification of applying the three-month suspension to the program And Dating Daan, rather
than to Soriano.

Issue:WON the suspension imposed constitutes prior restraint and an abridgment of his exercise
of religion and freedom of expression.

Ruling:

We thus reject petitioner’s postulate that its religious program is per se beyond review by
the respondent [MTRCB]. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the
bosom of internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children.
The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the
State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the
State is duty bound to prevent, i.e. serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public
health, public morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be
seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion
is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our country today. Across the sea and in our
shore, the bloodiest and bitterest wars fought by men were caused by irreconcilable religious
differences. Our country is still not safe from the recurrence of this stultifying strife considering
our warring religious beliefs and the fanaticism with which some of us cling and claw to these
beliefs. For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still.

Taking into account all the factors involved and the arguments pressed on the Court, the
suspension of the program is a sufficiently limited disciplinary action, both to address the
violation and to serve as an object lesson for the future. The simple but stubborn fact is that there
has been a violation of government regulations that have been put in place with a laudable
purpose, and this violation must accordingly be dealt with. We are not unmindful of the
concerns on the restriction of freedoms that may occur in imposing sanctions upon erring
individuals and institutions, but it cannot be over-emphasized that the freedoms encased in the
Bill of Rights are far from absolute. Each has its own limits, responsibilities, and obligations.
Everyone is expected to bear the burden implicit in the exercise of these freedoms. So it must be
here.
 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

SWS v COMELEC
Facts:
On the one hand, Social Weather Stations (SWS) is an institution conducting surveys
in various fields. Kamahalan Publishing Corp., on the other hand, publishes the Manila Standard
which is a newspaper of general circulation and features items of information including election
surveys. Both SWS and Kamahalan are contesting the validity and enforcement of R.A.
9006 (Fair Election Act), especially section 5.4which provides that surveys affecting national
candidates shall not be published
15days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not bepublished 7 days
before the election. SWS wanted to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the
elections both at the national and local levels and release to the media the results of such survey
as well as publish them directly. Kamahalan, for its part, intends to publish election survey
results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001.

Issue: WON the restriction on the publication of election survey constitutes a prior restraint on
the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint

Ruling:
Yes, Section 5.4 of R.A. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of
speech, expression, and the press.

The power of the COMELEC over media franchises is limited to ensuring equalopportunity,
time, space, and the right to reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of charge for the use
of media facilities for public information and forms among candidates. Here, the prohibition of
speech is direct, absolute, and substantial. Nor does this
section pass the O’brient test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses one type of
expression while allowing other types such as editorials, etc.; and (2) the restriction is greater
than what is needed to protect government
interest because the interest can e protected by narrower restrictions such as subsequent
punishment.
 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

SC RADIO TV COVERAGE OF TRIAL IN SANDIGANBAYAN

RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF

THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA,
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HERNANDO PEREZ, KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER
NG PILIPINAS, CESAR SARINO, RENATO CAYETANO and ATTY. RICARDO
ROMULO,v. ESTRADA and IBP.

Facts:
On 13 March 2001, the Kapisanan ng mgaBrodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent a letter
requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and
other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. Estrada before the
Sandiganbayan. The petitioners invoked other than the freedom of the press, the constitutional
right of the people to be informed of matters of public concern which could only be recognized,
served and satisfied by allowing live radio and television coverage of the court proceedings.
Moreover, the live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also serve the dual
purpose of ensuring the desired transparency in the administration of justice.

However, in the Resolution of the Court on October 1991, in a case for libel filed by then
President Corazon C. Aquino read that the Court resolved to prohibit live radio and television
coverage of court proceedings in view of protecting the parties’ right to due process, to prevent
distraction of the participants in the proceedings and to avoid miscarriage of justice.

Issue: Whether the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and right to information of
public concern be given more weight than the fundamental rights of the accused.

Ruling:
The petition is denied. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of
the press and the right to public information. It also approves of media's exalted power to
provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public
and in acquainting the public with the judicial process in action; nevertheless, within the
courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due
process which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions.

Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the contrary is
proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public's
attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence
but only by evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance
is demanded. "Television can work profound changes in the behavior of the people it focuses
on." The conscious or unconscious effect that such coverage may have on the testimony of
 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

witnesses and the decision of judges cannot be evaluated but, it can likewise be said, it is not at
all unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to yield to it.

Although an accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more
than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial aims to
ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are
not compromised. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that the
court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats, conduct
themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. In the constitutional sense, a courtroom
should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings,
not too small as to render the openness negligible and not too large as to distract the trial
participants from their proper functions, who shall then be totally free to report what they have
observed during the proceedings.