babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.

After a preliminary conference in which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by Order of August 16, 2004,
preventively suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan program for 20 days, in accordance with Section 3(d) of
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986, creating the MTRCB, in relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004 Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure. On September 27, 2004,
in Adm. Case No. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a decision suspending him from hosting Ang Dating Daan for three months.
Petitioner moves for 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. 4, Art. III of the Constitution. Petitioner asserts that his utterance in question is a protected
form of speech.

Issue:

Whether the utterance in question is a protected form of speech.

Ruling:

NO. It has been established in this jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-value expression refers to libelous
statements, obscenity or pornography, false or misleading advertisement, insulting or fighting words, i.e., those
which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace and expression
endangering national security. Even if we concede that petitioner’s remarks are not obscene but merely indecent
speech, still the Court rules that petitioner cannot avail himself of the constitutional protection of free speech. Said
statements were made in a medium easily accessible to children. With respect to the young minds, said utterances
are to be treated as unprotected speech. Petitioner’s offensive and obscene language uttered in a television
broadcast, without doubt, was easily accessible to the children. His statements could have exposed children to a
language that is unacceptable in everyday use. As such, the welfare of children and the States mandate to protect
and care for them, as parens patriae, constitute a substantial and compelling government interest in regulating
petitioners utterances in TV broadcast as provided in PD 1986. The suspension MTRCB imposed under the premises
was, in one perspective, permissible restriction. This disposition was made against the backdrop of the following
interplaying factors: First, the indecent speech was made via television, a pervasive medium that, to borrow from
Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak, easily reaches every home where there is a set [and where] [c]hildren will likely be
among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown; second, the broadcast was aired at the time of the day
when there was a reasonable risk that children might be in the audience; and third, petitioner uttered his speech on
a G or for general patronage rated program