Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MOVIE v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164785 2009-04-29	ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, in MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,[65] it was held that the power of review and prior approval of MTRCB extends to all television programs and is valid despite the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, all broadcast networks are regulated by the MTRCB since they are required to get a permit before they air their television programs. Consequently, their right to enjoy their freedom of speech is subject to that requirement. As lucidly explained by Justice Dante O. Tinga, government regulations through the MTRCB became "a necessary evil" with the government taking the role of assigning bandwidth to individual broadcasters. The stations explicitly agreed to this regulatory scheme; otherwise, chaos would result in the television broadcast industry as competing broadcasters will interfere or co-opt each other's signals. In this scheme, station owners and broadcasters in effect waived their right to the full enjoyment of their right to freedom of speech in radio and television programs and impliedly agreed that said right may be subject to prior restraint denial of permit or subsequent punishment, like suspension or cancellation of permit, among others.
	GR No. 164785 2009-04-29	ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA VELASCO JR., J.
Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC),[2] against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioner's remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan.[3] Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner a notice of the hearing on August 16, 2004 in relation to the alleged use of some cuss words in the August 10, 2004 episode of Ang Dating Daan.[4]
	GR No. 168338 2008-02-15	FRANCISCO CHAVEZ v. RAUL M. GONZALES PUNO, C.J.
But as early as half a century ago, we have already held that where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside if we must, technicalities of procedure."[20] Subsequently, this Court has repeatedly and consistently refused to wield procedural barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal questions that greatly impact on public interest,[21] in keeping with the Court's duty under the 1987 Constitution to determine whether or not other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them.
	GR NO. 148579 2007-02-05	GMA NETWORK v. MOVIE CORONA, J.
On the other hand, petitioner claims that "Muro Ami: The Making" was a public affairs program.[7] Even if that were so, our resolution of this issue would not change. This Court has already ruled that a public affairs program -- described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television news and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of opinions -- is within the MTRCB's power of review.[8] Clearly, "Muro Ami: The Making" (which petitioner claims to be a public affairs program) was well within the purview of MTRCB's power of prior review.