Gma vs ang dating daan
To merit a "G" rating, the program must be "suitable for all ages," which, in turn, means that the "material for television [does not], in the judgment of the [MTRCB], x x x contain anything unsuitable for children and minors, and may be viewed without adult guidance or supervision." As previously discussed by the Court, the vulgar language petitioner used on prime-time television can in no way be characterized as suitable for all ages, and is wholly inappropriate for children.
To be sure, petitioner has not contested the fact of his having made statements on the air that were contextually violative of the program's "G" rating.
Petitioner seeks reconsideration on the following grounds or issues: (1) the suspension thus meted out to the program constitutes prior restraint; (2) the Court erred in ruling that his utterances did not constitute exercise of religion; (3) the Court erred in finding the language used as offensive and obscene; (4) the Court should have applied its policy of non-interference in cases of conflict between religious groups; and (5) the Court erred in penalizing the television program for the acts of petitioner. Petitioner's threshold posture that the suspension thus imposed constitutes prior restraint and an abridgement of his exercise of religion and freedom of expression is a mere rehash of the position he articulated in the underlying petitions for certiorari and expounded in his memorandum.
Soriano for reconsideration of the Decision of the Court dated April 29, 2009, modifying that of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) by imposing the penalty of three-month suspension on the television show Ang Dating Daan, instead of on petitioner Soriano, as host of that program.
We reproduce what the Court pertinently wrote in Iglesia ni Cristo: We thus reject petitioner's postulate that its religious program is per se beyond review by the respondent [MTRCB]. The suspension of "Ang Dating Daan" by the MTRCB was a content-based, not a content-neutral regulation.
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. Hey, well, I don't take no shit, you know what I mean? Pacifica did not hold that indecent speech, when conveyed through a medium easily accessible to children, would automatically be outside the constitutional protection. The guideline that Pacifica laid down is that the broast of a monologue containing indecent speech could be considered protected or unprotected depending on the context, that is, the time of the day or the nightwhen the indecent utterances were delivered.serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. The majority's ruling in this case sets a dangerous precedent.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. It would be nice to change the movies that we already have and substitute the word fuck for the word kill, wherever we could, and some of those movie cliches would change a little bit. Easy on the clutch Bill, you'll fuck that engine again. This decision makes it possible for any television or radio program, on the slightest suspicion of being a danger to national security or on other pretexts, to likewise face suspension. R E S O L U T I O N Before us is this motion of petitioner Eliseo F. GAVINO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COMPLAINANTS BEFORE THE MTRCB, RESPONDENTS.