Ang dating daan net No creidt card old women dating sites looking for sex
There is nothing in petitioners statements subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission.
The fact that he came out with his statements in a televised bible exposition program does not automatically accord them the character of a religious discourse.
Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious speech. 165636 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, apart from his religious freedom, his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Sec. III of the Constitution, which reads: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.
Even petitioners attempts to place his words in context show that he was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by any religious conviction. He would also have the Court declare PD 1986, its Sec.
We cannot agree with petitioners assertion that the aforequoted IRR provision on preventive suspension is applicable only to motion pictures and publicity materials.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G. Clearly, the power to impose preventive suspension pending investigation is one of the implied or inherent powers of MTRCB.
164785, petitioner raises the following issues: (A) BY REASON THAT THE [IRR] IS INVALID INSOFAR AS IT PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDERS; (B) BY REASON OF LACK OF DUE HEARING IN THE CASE AT BENCH; (C) FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW; (D) FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION; AND (E) FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION. It is petitioners threshold posture that the preventive suspension imposed against him and the relevant IRR provision authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD 1986 does not expressly authorize the MTRCB to issue preventive suspension. Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as may be conferred by the Constitution or by statute.
Facts of the Case On August 10, 2004, at around p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made the following remarks: Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioners remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a decision, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, a Decision is hereby rendered, finding respondent Soriano liable for his utterances and thereby imposing on him a penalty of three (3) months suspension from his program, "Ang Dating Daan". The MTRCB did not, as petitioner insinuates, empower itself to impose preventive suspension through the medium of the IRR of PD 1986. Recall that the MTRCB is expressly empowered by statute to regulate and supervise television programs to obviate the exhibition or broadcast of, among others, indecent or immoral materials and to impose sanctions for violations and, corollarily, to prevent further violations as it investigates.
Soriano seeks to nullify and set aside an order and a decision of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) in connection with certain utterances he made in his television show, Ang Dating Daan. x x x Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. In a Resolution dated April 4, 2005, the Court consolidated G. To reiterate, preventive suspension authority of the MTRCB springs from its powers conferred under PD 1986. But the mere absence of a provision on preventive suspension in PD 1986, without more, would not work to deprive the MTRCB a basic disciplinary tool, such as preventive suspension.
164785, regarding the assailed order of preventive suspension, although its implementability had already been overtaken and veritably been rendered moot by the equally assailed September 27, 2004 decision.
Petitioner next injects the notion of religious freedom, submitting that what he uttered was religious speech, adding that words like "putang babae" were said in exercise of his religious freedom. The Court is at a loss to understand how petitioners utterances in question can come within the pale of Sec.
What the acronym MTRCB stands for would suggest as much.