Petitioners position may be accorded some cogency, but for the fact that it fails to consider that the medium he used to make his statements was a television broadcast, which is accessible to children of virtually all ages.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G. Petitioner next harps on the primacy of his freedoms, referring particularly to the exercise of his religious beliefs and profession, as presiding minister of his flock, over the right and duty of the state as parens patriae.
Consider the following excerpts from the Courts Decision: There is nothing in petitioners statements subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission.
Contrary to petitioners impression, the Court has, in fact, considered the factual antecedents of and his motive in making his utterances, and has found those circumstances wanting as defense for violating the programs "G" rating.
As already laid down in the Decision subject of this recourse, the interest of the government in protecting children who may be subjected to petitioners invectives must take precedence over his desire to air publicly his dirty laundry.
As he presently argues: The Honorable Court should have rendered its decision in light of the surrounding circumstances why and what prompted herein petitioner to utter those words.
The same case also laid the basis for the classification system of the MTRCB when it stated, "It cannot be denied though that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young." The penalty of suspension imposed on petitioner has driven him to liken the Court to "a blind man who was asked to describe an elephant, and by his description he stubbornly believed that an elephant is just the same as a Meralco post after touching one if its legs." Petitioner makes this comparison with the view that the factual backdrop against which his statements were made was purportedly not considered by the Court.
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.
His claim, assuming its veracity, that some INC ministers distorted his statements respecting amounts Ang Dating Daan owed to a TV station does not convert the foul language used in retaliation as religious speech. Worthy of note, in Pacifica, the FCC did not resort to any subsequent punishment, much less any prior restraint. Supreme Court, the monologue would have been protected were it delivered in another context.