RSS

What the Dissenting Judges Wrote: Bro. Eliseo Soriano Vs Laguardia, MTRCB on Speech

07 Jun

Justice Roberto Abad

The following is an update on the case of Bro. Eli Soriano versus Ma. Consoliza Laguardia and the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). It begins with the preacher’s account with a snippet from TOP magazine. It then leads to Erika T. Dy’s news on Supreme Court’s en banc decision, and Newsbreak Purple S. Romero’s voting report of the Supreme Court on the case. The focus is on the dissenting opinions of two justices: Justice Roberto A. Abad and Justice Antonio T. Carpio.The dissenting opinions carry facts of the case which can update the reader.

Dissent means that judges that do not agree with the majority may write their own dissenting opinions to state their views.

Justice Antonio Carpio


Background:

MTRCB suspended Bro. Soriano’s television broadcasts after the same religious group, the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), had filed practically the same complaints about the use of harsh words by Bro. Soriano or alleged “bad words” and defamation against the INC. Soriano contested the suspensions at the high court, complaining that the MTRCB violated his constitutional right to free religion, speech, and expression.

“The statements were merely in response to the detestable conduct of the ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo hosting a television program entitled, Ang Tamang Daan,” he said.

In taking Ang Dating Daan off the air, the MTRCB cited Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1986, granting the Board the power to screen, review, and examine all movie and TV programs and to delete materials that it deems morally offensive.

But Soriano countered that Section 3c of PD 1986 “is unconstitutional in so far as it sanctions the censorship of religious TV programs as a form of subsequent punishment.” [SOURCE: THE OLD PATH MAGAZINE. Vol. 1 No. 3 | 2005. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2.htm%5D

After four years, this report came out -

The Supreme Court en banc, in an 11-4 vote, upheld the three-month suspension imposed by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board on the TV program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, after its host, petitioner Eliseo S. Soriano, was found to have uttered offensive and obscene remarks during its August 10, 2004 broadcast.

The majority, in a consolidated decision, speaking through Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., held that the suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a “form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment.” In affirming the power of the MTRCB to issue an order of suspension, the majority said that “it is a sanction that the MTRCB may validly impose under its charter without running afoul of the free speech clause.” [Source: Erika T. Dy. SC Upholds MTRCB Suspension of Ang Dating Daan. Supreme Court of the Philippines. April 30, 2009.]

A researcher from Newsbreak had provided a capsule report of the voting of the High Court on this issue as follows –

How the Supreme Court decided on
Soriano v. Laguardia; Soriano v. MTRCB

(on the suspension of “Dating Daan” preacher for uttering profanities on air against the Iglesia ni Cristo)

Why is it important: The case raised questions on what constitutes prior restraint.

The SC upheld the 3-month suspension of Dating Daan host Eliseo Soriano, who uttered profanities against the religious sect Iglesia ni Cristo on his show.

The Movie and Television Review Classification Board first slapped Soriano with a 20-day preventive suspension upon preliminary probe. It then issued a 3-month suspension against Soriano after he was found guilty of expressing obscenities on air.

The majority ruled that it is within the powers of the MTRCB to issue a preventive suspension.

However, those who dissented, which included Chief Justice Reynato Puno, said that the sanction will extend to Soriano’s future speech, and thus would constitute prior restraint.

How they voted: De Castro concurred with the decision. Carpio and Carpio-Morales dissented. Brion and Corona voted to dismiss the petition. [Research by Purple S. Romero. Newsbreak.com]

Here come now the excerpts from Law Monitor of the Supreme Court showing the dissenting opinions of Justice Roberto A. Abad and Justice Antonio T. Carpio.

Saturday, June 5, 2010
Supreme Court Decisions and Resolutions March 2010

G.R. No. 164785/G.R. No. 165636. March 15, 2010
Eliseo F. Soriano Vs. Ma. Consoliza P. Laguardia, etc. et al./Eliseo F. Soriano Vs. Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, et al.

Dissenting Opinion
J. Carpio, J. Abad

This is The DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE J. ABAD [Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164785_abad.htm%5D

EN BANC

G.R. No. 164785 — ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner, versus MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 165636 — ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner, versus MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE AQUINO-GAVINO, NOEL R. DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL BORLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO IV, and FLORIMONDO C. ROUS, in their capacity as members of the Hearing and Adjudication Committee of the MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, in their capacity as complainants before the MTRCB, Respondents.

Promulgated:

March 15, 2010
x —————————————————————————————- x

DISSENTING OPINION

ABAD, J.:

I am submitting this dissent to the ably written ponencia of Justice Presbiterio J. Velasco, Jr. that seeks to deny the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision in the case.

Brief Antecedent

Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, a television evangelist, hosted the Ang Dating Daan, a popular television ministry aired nationwide everyday from 10:00 p.m. to midnight over public television. The program carried a “general patronage” rating from the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).

The Ang Dating Daan’s rivalry with another religious television program, the Iglesia ni Cristo’s Ang Tamang Daan, is well known. The hosts of the two shows have regularly engaged in verbal sparring on air, hurling accusations and counter-accusations with respect to their opposing religious beliefs and practices.

It appears that in his program Ang Tamang Daan, Michael M. Sandoval (Michael) of the Iglesia ni Cristo attacked petitioner Soriano of the Ang Dating Daan for alleged inconsistencies in his Bible teachings. Michael compared spliced recordings of Soriano’s statements, matched with subtitles of his utterances, to demonstrate those inconsistencies. On August 10, 2004, in an apparent reaction to what he perceived as a malicious attack against him by the rival television program, Soriano accused Michael of prostituting himself with his fabricated presentations. Thus:

“….gago ka talaga Michael. Masahol ka pa sa putang babae. O di ba? Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng demonyong ito…”

Michael and seven other ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo lodged a complaint against petitioner Soriano before the MTRCB. Acting swiftly, the latter preventively suspended the airing of Soriano’s Ang Dating Daan television program for 20 days, pursuant to its powers under Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree 1986 and its related rules.

Petitioner Soriano challenged the validity of that preventive suspension before this Court in G.R. 164785. Meanwhile, after hearing the main case or on September 27, 2004, the MTRCB found Soriano guilty as charged and imposed on him a penalty of three months suspension from appearing on the Ang Dating Daan program. Soriano thus filed a second petition in G.R. 165636 to question that decision. The Court consolidated the two cases.

On April 29, 2009 the Court rendered a decision, upholding MTRCB’s power to impose preventive suspension and affirming its decision against petitioner Soriano with the modification of applying the three-month suspension to the program And Dating Daan, rather than to Soriano.

Issue Presented

This dissenting opinion presents a narrow issue: whether or not the Court is justified in imposing the penalty of three-month suspension on the television program Ang Dating Daan on the ground of host petitioner Soriano’s remarks about Iglesia ni Cristo’s Michael prostituting himself when he attacked Soriano in the Iglesia’s own television program.

The Dissent

The Ang Dating Daan is a nationwide television ministry of a church organization officially known as “Members of the Church of God International” headed by petitioner Soriano. It is a vast religious movement not so far from those of Mike Velarde’s El Shadai, Eddie Villanueva’s Jesus is Lord, and Apollo Quiboloy’s The Kingdom of Jesus Christ. These movements have generated such tremendous following that they have been able to sustain daily television and radio programs that reach out to their members and followers all over the country. Some of their programs are broadcast abroad. Ang Dating Daan is aired in the United States and Canada.

The Catholic Church is of course the largest religious organization in the Philippines. If its members get their spiritual nourishments from attending masses or novenas in their local churches, those of petitioner Soriano’s church tune in every night to listen to his televised Bible teachings and how these teachings apply to their lives. They hardly have places of worship like the Catholic Church or the mainstream protestant movements.

Thus, suspending the Ang Dating Daan television program is the equivalent of closing down their churches to its followers. Their inability to tune in on their Bible teaching program in the evening is for them like going to church on Sunday morning, only to find its doors and windows heavily barred. Inside, the halls are empty.

Do they deserve this? No.

1. A tiny moment of lost temper.

Petitioner Soriano’s Bible ministry has been on television continuously for 27 years since 1983 with no prior record of use of foul language. For a 15-second outburst of its head at his bitterest critics, it seems not fair for the Court to close down this Bible ministry to its large followers altogether for a full quarter of a year. It is like cutting the leg to cure a smelly foot.

2. Not obscene.

Primarily, it is obscenity on television that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech does not protect. As the Court’s decision points out, the test of obscenity is whether the average person, applying contemporary standards, would find the speech, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. A thing is prurient when it arouses lascivious thoughts or desires or tends to arouse sexual desire.

A quarter-of-a-year suspension would probably be justified when a general patronage program intentionally sneaks in snippets of lewd, prurient materials to attract an audience to the program. This has not been the case here.

3. Merely borders on indecent.

Actually, the Court concedes that petitioner Soriano’s short outburst was not in the category of the obscene. It was just “indecent.” But were his words and their meaning utterly indecent? In a scale of 10, did he use the grossest language? He did not.

First, Soriano actually exercised some restraints in the sense that he did not use the vernacular word for the female sexual organ when referring to it, which word even the published opinions of the Court avoided despite its adult readers. He referred to it as “yung ibaba” or down below. And, instead of using the patently offensive vernacular equivalent of the word “fuck” that describes the sexual act in which the prostitute engages herself, he instead used the word “gumagana lang doon yung ibaba” or what functions is only down below. At most, his utterance merely bordered on the indecent.

Second, the word “puta” or “prostitute” describes a bad trade but it is not a bad word. The world needs a word to describe it. “Evil” is bad but the word “evil” is not; the use of the words “puta” or “evil” helps people understand the values that compete in this world. A policy that places these ordinary descriptive words beyond the hearing of children is unrealistic and is based on groundless fear. Surely no member of the Court will recall that when yet a child his or her hearing the word “puta” for the first time left him or her wounded for life.

Third, Soriano did not tell his viewers that being a prostitute was good. He did not praise prostitutes as to make them attractive models to his listeners. Indeed, he condemned Michael for acting like a prostitute in attacking him on the air. The trouble is that the Court, like the MTRCB read his few lines in isolation. Actually, from the larger picture, Soriano appears to have been provoked by Michael’s resort to splicing his speeches and making it appear that he had taught inconsistent and false doctrines to his listeners. If Michael’s sin were true, Soriano was simply defending himself with justified anger.

And fourth, the Court appears to have given a literal meaning to what Soriano said.

“Gago ka talaga x x x, masahol ka pa sa putang babae x x x. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba!”

This was a figure of speech. Michael was a man, so he could not literally be a female prostitute. Its real meaning is that Michael was acting like a prostitute in mouthing the ideas of anyone who cared to pay him for such service. It had no indecent meaning. The Bible itself uses the word “prostitute” as a figure of speech. “By their deeds they prostituted themselves,” said Psalm 106:39 of the Israelites who continued to worship idols after God had taken them out of Egyptian slavery. Soriano’s real message is that Michael prostituted himself by his calumny against him.

If at all, petitioner Soriano’s breach of the rule of decency is slight, one on a scale of 10. Still, the Court would deprive the Ang Dating Daan followers of their nightly bible teachings for a quarter of a year because their head teacher had used figures of speech to make his message vivid.

4. The average child as listener

The Court claims that, since Ang Dating Daan carried a general patronage rating, Soriano’s speech no doubt caused harm to the children who watched the show. This statement is much too sweeping.

The Court relies on the United States case of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Pacifica Foundation, a 1978 landmark case. Here are snatches of the challenged monologue that was aired on radio:

The original seven words were, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Those are the ones that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and maybe, even bring us, God help us, peace without honor and bourbon…Also cocksucker is a compound word and neither half of that is really dirty…And the cock crowed three times, the cock—three times. It’s in the Bible, cock in the Bible…Hot shit, holy shit, tough shit, eat shit, shit-eating grin…It’s a great word, fuck, nice word, easy word, cute word, kind of. Easy word to say. One syllable, short u. Fuck…A little something for everyone. Fuck. Good word. x x x

Imagine how the above would sound if translated into any of the Filipino vernaculars. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the above is not protected speech and that the FCC could regulate its airing on radio. The U.S. Supreme Court was of course correct.

Here, however, there is no question that Soriano attacked Michael, using figure of speech, at past 10:00 in the evening, not at 2:00 in the afternoon. The average Filipino child would have been long in bed by the time Ang Dating Daan appeared on the television screen. What is more, Bible teaching and interpretation is not the stuff of kids. It is not likely that they would give up programs of interest to them just to listen to Soriano drawing a distinction between “faith” and “work or action.” The Court has stretched the “child” angle beyond realistic proportions. The MTRCB probably gave the program a general patronage rating simply because Ang Dating Daan had never before been involved in any questionable broadcast in the previous 27 years that it had been on the air.

The monologue in the FCC case that was broadcast at 2 in the afternoon was pure indecent and gross language, uttered for its own sake with no social value at all. It cannot compare to Soriano’s speech where the indecent words were slight and spoken as mere figure of speech to defend himself from what he perceived as malicious criticism.

5. Disproportionate penalty

The Court applied the balancing of interest test in justifying the imposition of the penalty of suspension against Ang Dating Daan. Under this test, when particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented.

An example of this is where an ordinance prohibits the making of loud noises from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Can this ordinance be applied to prevent vehicles circling the neighborhood at such hours of night, playing campaign jingles on their loudspeakers to win votes for candidates in the election? Here, there is a tension between the rights of candidates to address their constituents and the interest of the people in healthy undisturbed sleep. The Court would probably uphold the ordinance since public interest demands a quiet night’s rest for all and since the restraint on the freedom of speech is indirect, conditional, and partial. The candidate is free to make his broadcast during daytime when people are normally awake and can appreciate what he is saying.

But here, the abridgment of speech—three months total suspension of the Ang Dating Daan television bible teaching program—cannot be regarded as indirect, conditional, or partial. It is a direct, unconditional, and total abridgment of the freedom of speech, to which a religious organization is entitled, for a whole quarter of a year.

In the American case of FCC, a parent complained. He was riding with his son in the car at 2:00 in the afternoon and they heard the grossly indecent monologue on radio. Here, no parent has in fact come forward with a complaint that his child had heard petitioner Soriano’s speech and was harmed by it. The Court cannot pretend that this is a case of angry or agitated parents against Ang Dating Daan. The complaint here came from Iglesia ni Cristo preachers and members who deeply loathed Soriano and his church. The Court’s decision will not be a victory for the children but for the Iglesia ni Cristo, finally enabling it to silence an abhorred competing religious belief and its practices.

What is more, since this case is about protecting children, the more appropriate penalty, if Soriano’s speech during the program mentioned was indecent and had offended them, is to raise his program’s restriction classification. The MTRCB classify programs to protect vulnerable audiences. It can change the present G or General Patronage classification of Ang Dating Daan to PG or “with Parental Guidance only” for three months. This can come with a warning that should the program commit the same violation, the MTRCB can make the new classification permanent or, if the violation is recurring, cancel its program’s permit.

This has precedent. In Gonzales v. Katigbak, the Court did not ban the motion picture just because there were suggestive scenes in it that were not fit for children. It simply classified the picture as for adults only. By doing this, the Court would not be cutting the leg to cure a smelly foot.

I vote to partially grant the motion for reconsideration by modifying the three-month suspension penalty imposed on the program Ang Dating Daan. In its place, I vote to raise the program’s restriction classification from G or General Patronage to PG or with Parental Guidance for three months with warning that should petitioner Soriano commit the same violation, the classification of his program will be permanently changed or, if the violation is persistent, the program will be altogether cancelled.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

[1] Creating the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board.

[2] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 1829.

[3] Id. at 1274.

[4] New International Version (North American Edition); see other biblical passages that use “prostitute” as a figure of speech: Judges 2:17; 8:27; 8:33; 1Chronicles 5:25; and Leviticus 20:5.

[5] 438 U.S. 726.

[6] 222 Phil. 225 (1985).

Finally, this is The DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE CARPIO [ Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/164785_carpio.htm%5D

EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 164785 and 165636 – ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner, – versus – MA. CONSOLACION P. LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ET AL., Respondents.

Promulgated:
March 15, 2010
x—————————————————————————————–x

DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO, J.:

Liberty is a right that inheres in every one of us as a member of the human family. When a person is deprived of his right, all of us are diminished and debased for liberty is total and indivisible.

Among the cherished liberties in a democracy such as ours is freedom of expression. A democracy needs a healthy public sphere where the people can exchange ideas, acquire knowledge and information, confront public issues, or discuss matters of public interest, without fear of reprisals. Free speech must be protected so that the people can engage in the discussion and deliberation necessary for the successful operation of democratic institutions. Thus, no less than our Constitution mandates full protection to freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press. All of the protections expressed in the Bill of Rights are important, but the courts have accorded to free speech the status of a preferred freedom. This qualitative significance of freedom of expression arises from the fact that it is the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom.

The freedom of expression clause is precisely a guarantee against both prior restraint and subsequent punishment. It protects from any undue interference by the government the people’s right to freely speak their minds. The guarantee rests on the principle that freedom of expression is essential to a functioning democracy and suppression of expression leads to authoritarianism.

Prior restraint has been defined as official governmental restrictions on any form of expression in advance of actual dissemination. But the mere prohibition of government interference before words are spoken is not an adequate protection of the freedom of expression if the government could arbitrarily punish after the words have been spoken. The threat of subsequent punishment itself would operate as a very effective prior restraint.

Any form of prior restraint bears a presumption against its constitutional validity. The burden is on the censor to justify any imposition of prior restraint, not on the censored to put up a defense against it. In the case of print media, it has been held that just because press freedom may sometimes be abused does not mean that the press does not deserve immunity from prior restraint. The settled rule is that any such abuse may be remedied by subsequent punishment.

This Court, in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., laid down the following guideline:

All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and present danger rule – that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent.

Chief Justice Fernando expounded on the meaning of the “clear and present danger” test in Gonzalez v. Chairman Katigbak, to wit:

The test, to repeat, to determine whether freedom of expression may be limited is the clear and present danger of an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but must also be present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. There is the requirement of its being well-nigh inevitable.

Where the medium of a television broadcast is concerned, as in the case at hand, well-entrenched is the rule that censorship is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest.

One of the established exceptions in freedom of expression is speech characterized as obscene. I will briefly discuss obscenity as the majority opinion characterized the subject speech in this case as obscene, thereby taking the speech out of the scope of constitutional protection.

The leading test for determining what material could be considered obscene was the famous Regina v. Hicklin case wherein Lord Cockburn enunciated thus:

I think the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.

Judge Learned Hand, in United States v. Kennerly, opposed the strictness of the Hicklin test even as he was obliged to follow the rule. He wrote:

I hope it is not improper for me to say that the rule as laid down, however consonant it may be with mid-Victorian morals, does not seem to me to answer to the understanding and morality of the present time.

Roth v. United States laid down the more reasonable and thus, more acceptable test for obscenity: “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.” Such material is defined as that which has “a tendency to excite lustful thoughts,” and “prurient interest” as “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.”

Miller v. California merely expanded the Roth test to include two additional criteria: “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and the work, taken as whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The basic test, as applied in our jurisprudence, extracts the essence of both Roth and Miller – that is, whether the material appeals to prurient interest.

The present controversy emanated from the alleged splicing of a video recording wherein petitioner was supposedly made to appear as if he was asking for contributions to raise 37 trillion pesos instead of the allegedly true amount of 3.6 million pesos. The video was played by ministers of Iglesia ni Cristo in their television program “Ang Tamang Daan.”

In response, petitioner Eliseo Soriano, as host of the television program “Ang Dating Daan,” made the following utterances:

Bro. Josel Mallari:
Ulit-ulit na iyang talagang kawalanghiyaan na iyan, naku. E, markado nang masyado at saka branded na itong nga ito anong klase po sila. Wala kayong babalikan diyan Kapatid na Manny. Iyang klase ng mga ministro na iyan, pasamain lamang si Kapatid na Eli e pati mga ninakaw na tape, pati mga audio na pinag-edit-edit, lalagyan ng caption para makita nila, maipakita nilang malinaw ‘yung panloloko nila. Kasi Sis. Luz, puwede mo nang hindi lagyan ng caption e, patunugin mo na lang na ganun ang sinasabi. Pero talagang para mai-emphasize nila ‘yung kanilang kawalanghiyaan, lalagyan pa nila ng caption na hindi naman talagang sinabi ni Bro. Eli kundi pinagdugtong lang ‘yung audio.

Bro. Eli Soriano:
At saka ang malisyoso. Kitang-kita malisyoso e. Paninirang-puri e. Alam mo kung bakit? Mahilig daw ako talagang manghingi para sa aking pangangailangan. Pangangailangan ko ba ‘yung pambayad sa UNTV e ang mga kontrata diyan ay hindi naman ako kapatid na Josel.

Bro. Josel Mallari:
Ay, opo.

Bro. Eli Soriano:
Hindi ko kontrata iyang babayaran na iyan. I am not even a signatory to that contract. Pagkatapos para pagbintangan mo ako na humingi ako para sa pangangailangan ko, gago ka talaga Michael. Masahol ka pa sa putang babae. O, di ba? Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. Sige, sumagot kayo. At habang ginaganyan ninyo ako, ang mga miyembro ninyo unti-unting maliliwanagan. Makikita n’yo rin, magreresulta ng maganda iyan.

Bro. Manny Catangay Jusay:
Bro. Eli, ay iyan nga po ang sinasabi ko e, habang gumagawa sila ng ganyan, gaya nung sinabi nung Kapatid natin kagabi dahil napanood ‘yung kasinungalingan ni Pol Guevarra, ay, lumuluha ‘yung Kapatid, inaanyayahan ‘yung mag-anak niya. Magsialis na kayo diyan. Lipat na kayo rito. Kasi kung nag-iisip lang ang isang Iglesia ni Cristo matapos ninyong mapanood itong episode na ito, iiwanan ninyo e, kung mahal ninyo ang kaluluwa ninyo. Hindi kayo paaakay sa ganyan, nagpafabricate ng mga kasinungalingan. Sabi ko nga lahat ng paraan ng pakikipagbaka nagawa na nila e, isa na lang ang hindi ‘yung pakikipagdebate at patunayan na sila ang totoo. Iyon na lang ang hindi nila nagagawa. Pero demanda, paninirang-puri – nagtataka nga ako e, tayo, kaunting kibot, nakademanda sila e. ‘yung ginagawa nila, ewan ko, idinedemanda n’yo ba Bro. Eli?

The majority opinion ruled that the highlighted portion of the aforequoted speech was obscene and was, therefore, not entitled to constitutional protection.

Well-settled is the rule that speech, to be considered obscene, must appeal to prurient interest as defined in Roth and firmly adopted in our jurisdiction. The subject speech cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to appeal to any prurient interest. The highlighted portion of the verbal exchange between the two feuding religious groups is utterly bereft of any tendency to excite lustful thoughts as to be deemed obscene. The majority’s finding of obscenity is clearly untenable.

In contrast, a radio broadcast of a monologue replete with indecent words such as shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits, has been held protected speech depending on the context relating to the time of broadcast. However, in this case before us, the words “putang babae” (female prostitute), and the descriptive action phrases “ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba” and “kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas” were enough to constitute outright obscenity for the majority. The majority opinion simply forced these words and phrases into a strained standard formula for censorship. But such overbroad standard must be struck down for it indiscriminately infringes upon free speech.

The subject speech in this case may, at most, be considered indecent speech.

Indecent speech conveyed through the medium of broadcast is a case of first impression in our jurisdiction. However, this issue has been settled in American case law, which has persuasive influence in our jurisprudence. There, the rule is that indecent speech is protected depending on the context in which it is spoken. The concept of what is “indecent” is intimately connected with the exposure of children to language that describes, in terms patently offensive, as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation is the landmark U.S. case on the regulation of indecent speech in broadcast. The case involved a radio broadcast of “Filthy Words,” a 12-minute monologue by American stand-up comedian and social critic, George Carlin. Appended to the decision is the following verbatim transcript prepared by the Federal Communications Commission:

The original seven words were, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Those are the ones that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and maybe, even bring us, God help us, peace without honor and a bourbon. And now the first thing that we noticed was that word fuck was really repeated in there because the word motherfucker is a compound word and it’s another form of the word fuck. You want to be a purist, it can’t be on the list of basic words. Also, cocksucker is a compound word and neither half of that is really dirty. The word-the half sucker that’s merely suggestive and the word cock is a half-way dirty word, 50% dirty-dirty half the time, depending on what you mean by it. Uh, remember when you first heard it, like in 6th grade, you used to giggle. And the cock crowed three times, the cock-three times. It’s in the Bible, cock in the Bible. And the first time you heard about a cock-fight, remember-What? Huh? It ain’t that, are you stupid? It’s chickens, you know, Then you have the four letter words from the old Angle-Saxon fame. Uh, shit and fuck. The word shit, uh, is an interesting kind of word in that the middle class has never really accepted it and approved it. They use it like, crazy but it’s not really okay. It’s still a rude, dirty, old kind of gushy word. They don’t like that, but they say it, like, they say it like, a lady now in a middle-class home, you’ll hear most of the time she says it as an expletive, you know, it’s out of her mouth before she knows. She says, Oh shit oh shit, oh shit. If she drops something, Oh, the shit hurt the broccoli. Shit. Thank you.

Shit! I won the Grammy, man, for the comedy album. Isn’t that groovy? That’s true. Thank you. Thank you man. Yeah. Thank you man. Thank you. Thank you very much, man. Thank, no, for that and for the Grammy, man, [']cause that’s based on people liking it man, that’s okay man. Let’s let that go, man. I got my Grammy. I can let my hair hang down now, shit. Ha! So! Now the word shit is okay for the man. At work you can say it like crazy. Mostly figuratively, Get that shit out of here, will ya? I don’t want to see that shit anymore. I can’t cut that shit, buddy. I’ve had that shit up to here. I think you’re full of shit myself. He don’t know shit from Shinola. you know that? Always wondered how the Shinola people felt about that Hi, I’m the new man from Shinola, Hi, how are ya? Nice to see ya. How are ya? Boy, I don’t know whether to shit or wind my watch. Guess, I’ll shit on my watch. Oh, the shit is going to hit de fan. Built like a brick shit-house. Up, he’s up shit’s creek. He’s had it. He hit me, I’m sorry. Hot shit, holy shit, tough shit, eat shit. shit-eating grin. Uh, whoever thought of that was ill. He had a shit-eating grin! He had a what? Shit on a stick. Shit in a handbag. I always like that. He ain’t worth shit in a handbag. Shitty. He acted real shitty. You know what I mean? I got the money back, but a real shitty attitude. Heh, he had a shit-fit. Wow! Shit-fit. Whew! Glad I wasn’t there. All the animals-Bull shit, horse shit, cow shit, rat shit, bat shit. First time I heard bat shit, I really came apart. A guy in Oklahoma, Boggs, said it, man. Aw! Bat shit. Vera reminded me of that last night. Snake shit, slicker than owl shit. Get your shit together. Shit or get off the pot. I got a shit-load full of them. I got a shit-pot full, all right. Shit-head, shit-heel, shit in your heart, shit for brains, shit-face. I always try to think how that could have originated; the first guy that said that. Somebody got drunk and fell in some shit, you know. Hey, I’m shit-face. Shit-face, today. Anyway, enough of that shit. The big one, the word fuck that’s the one that hangs them up the most. [']Cause in a lot of cases that’s the very act that hangs them up the most. So, it’s natural that the word would, uh, have the same effect. It’s a great word, fuck, nice word, easy word, cute word, kind of. Easy word to say. One syllable, short u. Fuck. You know, it’s easy. Starts with a nice soft sound fuh ends with a kuh. Right? A little something for everyone. Fuck Good word. Kind of a proud word, too. Who are you? I am FUCK, FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. Tune in again next week to FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. It’s an interesting word too, [']cause it’s got a double kind of a life-personality-dual, you know, whatever the right phrase is. It leads a double life, the word fuck. First of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuck. What does it mean? It means to make love. Right? We’re going to make love, yeh, we’re going to fuck, yeh, we’re going to fuck, yeh, we’re going to make love. we’re really going to fuck, yeh, we’re going to make love. Right? And it also means the beginning of life, it’s the act that begins life, so there’s the word hanging around with words like love, and life, and yet on the other hand, it’s also a word that we really use to hurt each other with, man. It’s a heavy one that you have toward the end of the argument. Right? You finally can’t make out. Oh, fuck you man. I said, fuck you. Stupid fuck. Fuck you and everybody that looks like you man. 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. Madfuckers still on the loose. Stop me before I fuck again. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. Easy on the clutch Bill, you’ll fuck that engine again. The other shit one was, I don’t give a shit. Like it’s worth something, you know? I don’t give a shit. Hey, well, I don’t take no shit, you know what I mean? You know why I don’t take no shit? [']Cause I don’t give a shit. If I give a shit, I would have to pack shit. But I don’t pack no shit cause I don’t give a shit. You wouldn’t shit me, would you? That’s a joke when you’re a kid with a worm looking out the bird’s ass. You wouldn’t shit me, would you? It’s an eight-year-old joke but a good one. The additions to the list. I found three more words that had to be put on the list of words you could never say on television, and they were fart, turd and twat, those three. Fart, we talked about, it’s harmless. It’s like tits, it’s a cutie word, no problem. Turd, you can’t say but who wants to, you know? The subject never comes up on the panel so I’m not worried about that one. Now the word twat is an interesting word. Twat! Yeh, right in the twat. Twat is an interesting word because it’s the only one I know of, the only slang word applying to the, a part of the sexual anatomy that doesn’t have another meaning to it. Like, ah, snatch, box and pussy all have other meanings, man. Even in a Walt Disney movie, you can say, We’re going to snatch that pussy and put him in a box and bring him on the airplane. Everybody loves it. The twat stands alone, man, as it should. And two-way words. Ah, ass is okay providing you’re riding into town on a religious feast day. You can’t say, up your ass. You can say, stuff it!

Worthy of note, in Pacifica, the FCC did not resort to any subsequent punishment, much less any prior restraint. The station was not suspended for the broadcast of the monologue, which the U.S. Supreme Court merely considered indecent speech based on the context in which it was delivered. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the monologue would have been protected were it delivered in another context. The monologue was broadcast at 2:00 p.m., when children were presumptively in the audience.

A later case, Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, establishes the safe harbor period to be from 10:00 in the evening to 6:00 in the morning, when the number of children in the audience is at a minimum. In effect, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the broadcasting of material considered indecent is permitted. Between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., the broadcast of any indecent material may be sanctioned.

In this case, the subject speech by petitioner was broadcast starting 10:00 p.m. onwards, clearly within the safe harbor period as established in Action for Children’s Television. Correctly applying Pacifica’s context-based ruling, petitioner’s speech, if indeed indecent, enjoys constitutional protection and may not be sanctioned. The rule on this matter, as laid down by Pacifica in relation to Action for Children’s Television, is crystal-clear. But should the majority still have any doubt in their minds, such doubt should be resolved in favor of free speech and against any interference by government. The suspension of “Ang Dating Daan” by the MTRCB was a content-based, not a content-neutral regulation. Thus, the suspension should have been subjected to strict scrutiny following the rule in Chavez v. Gonzales. The test should be strict because the regulation went into the very heart of the rationale for the right to free speech – that speech may not be prohibited just because government officials disapprove of the speaker’s views.

Further, the majority opinion held that even if petitioner’s utterances were not obscene but merely indecent speech, they would still be outside of the constitutional protection because they were conveyed through a medium easily accessible to children. The majority misapplied the doctrine of FCC v. Pacifica, the leading jurisprudence on this matter. Pacifica did not hold that indecent speech, when conveyed through a medium easily accessible to children, would automatically be outside the constitutional protection. On the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the narrowness of its ruling in Pacifica. The guideline that Pacifica laid down is that the broadcast 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 night when the indecent utterances were delivered.

The majority’s ruling in this case sets a dangerous precedent. 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. The exacting “clear and present danger” test is dispensed with to give way to the “balancing of interests” test in favor of the government’s exercise of its regulatory power. Granting without conceding that “balancing of interests” is the appropriate test in setting a limitation to free speech, suspension of a television program is a measure way too harsh that it would be inappropriate as the most reasonable means for averting a perceived harm to society. The restriction on freedom need not be greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest.

The “balancing of interests” test requires that a determination must first be made whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the protected freedom. The majority immediately resorted to outright suspension without first exploring other measures less restrictive of freedom of speech. It cites MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation in justifying the government’s exercise of regulatory power. But the ABS-CBN case involved a mere fine as punishment, not a prior restraint in the form of suspension as in this case. In the cited case, one of the episodes of “The Inside Story,” a television program of ABS-CBN, was aired without prior review and approval by the MTRCB. For this omission, the MTRCB subsequently fined ABS-CBN in the amount of P20,000. However, even as the television station was fined, the program continued to be aired and was never suspended.

Indeed, prior restraint by suspension is an extreme measure that may only be imposed after satisfying the “clear and present danger” test, which requires the perceived danger to be both grave and imminent. Prior restraint is simply uncalled for in this case where what is involved is not even obscene speech, but mere indecent speech. Note too, that the subject utterances in this case were broadcast starting 10:00 p.m. onwards, well within the safe harbor period for permissible television broadcast of speech which may be characterized as indecent.

Suspension of the program stops not only petitioner, but also the other leaders of his congregation from exercising their constitutional right to free speech through their medium of choice, which is television. The majority opinion attempts to assuage petitioner’s misery by saying that petitioner can still exercise his right to speak his mind using other venues. But this proposition assumes that petitioner has access to other venues where he may continue his interrupted exercise of free speech using his chosen mode, television broadcast.

While we may not agree with petitioner’s choice of language in expressing his disgust in this word war between two feuding religious groups, let us not forget that freedom of speech includes the expression of thoughts that we do not approve of, not just thoughts that are agreeable. To paraphrase Voltaire: We may disapprove of what petitioner has said, but we must defend to the death his right to say it.

The three-month suspension cannot be passed off merely as a preventive suspension that does not partake of a penalty. The actual and real effect of the three-month suspension is a prior restraint on expression in violation of a fundamental constitutional right. Even Congress cannot validly pass a law imposing a three-month preventive suspension on freedom of expression for offensive or vulgar language uttered in the past. Congress may punish such offensive or vulgar language after their utterance, with damages, fine, or imprisonment; but Congress has no power to suspend or suppress the people’s right to speak freely because of such utterances. In short, Congress may pass a law punishing defamation or tortious speech but the punishment cannot be the suspension or suppression of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Otherwise, such law would be abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press. If Congress cannot pass such a law, neither can respondent MTRCB promulgate a rule or a decision suspending for three months petitioner’s constitutional right to freedom of speech. And of course, neither can this Court give its stamp of imprimatur to such an unconstitutional MTRCB rule or decision.

I end this dissenting opinion with a reminder from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes – that the market place of ideas is still the best alternative to censorship. The market place of ideas makes freedom of speech robust and allows people to be more tolerant of opposing views. It has been said that freedom of speech is not only to freely express oneself within the context of the law but also to hear what others say, that all may be enlightened, regardless of how obnoxious or erroneous the opposing views may be.

Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the motion for reconsideration.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

[1] Ordonez v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 115576, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 152.

[2] Simone Chambers, Deliberation, Democracy, and the Media, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000, p. xi.

[3] Id. at 3.

[4] Constitution, Article III, Section 4.

[5] Blo Umpar Adiong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 103956, 31 March 1992, 207 SCRA 712.

[6] Joaquin Bernas, S.J. Constitutional Rights and Social Demands, Notes and Cases Part II, 2004. pp. 284-285.

[7] Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 409 Phil. 571 (2001); Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, 26 July 1996, 259 SCRA 529 citing Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

[8] 222 Phil. 151.

[9] 222 Phil. 225.

[10] Id.

[11] L.R. 3 Q.B. 360, 371 (1868).

[12] 209 F. 119, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1913).

[13] 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

[14] 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

[15] Gonzales v. Chairman Katigbak, supra note 9.

[16] Rollo, G.R. No. 164785, pp. 148-153.

[17] Gonzales v. Chairman Katigbak, supra note 9; Pita v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80806, 5 October 1989, 178 SCRA 362; Fernando v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 351.

[18] FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] On 21 February 1975, the Federal Communications Commission issued a declaratory order granting the complaint and holding that Pacifica “could have been the subject of administrative sanctions.” The Commission did not impose formal sanctions, but it did state that the order would be “associated with the station’s license file, and in the event that subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress.”

[22] 58 F.3d 654 (1995).

[23] G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008, 545 SCRA 441.

[24] See the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Reynato Puno in this case. Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, 29 April 2009.

[25] Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, supra note 7.

[26] Thomas Emerson, Towards a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale Law Journal 877 (1963).

[27] 489 Phil. 544 (2005).

[28] Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, No. L-27833, 137 Phil. 471 (1969).

[29] Dissenting Opinion of Justice Holmes in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 40 S. Ct. 17, 63 L. Ed. 1173 (1919).

[30] Ruben Agpalo, Philippine Constitutional Law, 2006, p. 330.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

83 responses to “What the Dissenting Judges Wrote: Bro. Eliseo Soriano Vs Laguardia, MTRCB on Speech

  1. kotawinters

    June 7, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    I am very proud of these justices.

    I particularly like Justice Roberto A. Abad for what he knows about Ang Dating Daan and Bro. Eli. He is like an insider because of his very wide perspective about the Church.

    Even the way he had structured his opinion and the way he expresses things is laudable. I can guess he writes and is much informed about literature. I am impressed about the fine dividing lines he discussed about figures of speech and literal meanings.

     
    • aiz

      December 30, 2010 at 2:42 am

      Panay papuri nyo pero di nyo naman pinost yung opinyon ng majority para nakita ng tao. E maliwanag dito na pinagkkait nyo sa tao ang kontexo ng pagtingin sa kaso.

       
      • kotawinters

        December 30, 2010 at 3:29 am

        aiz,

        Dissenting judges nga eh! Dapat both sides malaman ng mga tao. At kung bakit sila nag-dissent. Ang majority lang ba ang may karapatan magsalita?

         
      • cocoy

        January 7, 2011 at 3:12 am

        what kind of context you need to see, it’s fair & simple: If inc complains, it is entertained well but when the other side complains… nothing happens. Unfair. That is the context AIZ!

         
      • Prince Einrich Hohenzollern Einelbert

        March 31, 2012 at 9:10 am

        Aiz, in what galaxy did you jump from? You are obviously not a lawyer. The majority opinion is always published in public. It is called Philippine Reports for that reason. Please… do not elevate your self in a lawyer’s level. We are a class of our own, sui generis.

         
  2. Mark Jay

    June 7, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    To God be the Glory!

    I believe not all the judges can be influenced by the adversary. Some of them act and exercise real justice based on what they know is right.

    Thanks be to God! ^_^

     
  3. jocelyn bautista

    June 7, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Never underestimate the power of Truth…some may come at the end, but it will prevail.

    Thanks be to God.

     
  4. James B.

    June 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Amazing. In the midst of evil, there is a few select who are good; In the middle of darkness, there is light; In the eye of the storm, there is calmness; In the center of man’s courthouse, lies injustice, but in God’s court justice will prevail. For if one will only center his attention to lies, there can be no truth in him; But if one centers on the goodness of his heart, then he is truly wise.

    Thanks be to God that in the middle of blind justices, there are who really see.

    1Jn 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

     
  5. stewardsecretsofgod

    June 7, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    This is the bio of Justice Roberto A. Abad
    Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines

    Justice Abad was a Dean’s Lister at the Ateneo de Manila University where he earned his law degree. He first engaged in private practice, working for about a year at the Jose W. Diokno Law Office in 1968 before he joined the government working as Technical Assistant (1969-1973) and Associate Attorney (1974-1975) at the Supreme Court, supervised by then Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro.

    In 1975, he joined the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). In 1985, he was promoted to Assistant Solicitor General, a post he held for about a year before putting up his own law firm. He has been engaged in the practice of law for over 22 years.

    No less than the late Chief Justice Roberto C. Concepcion, the first UST law graduate to top the Bar examinations and then UST Faculty of Civil Law Dean, recruited Justice Abad from the OSG in 1978 to teach Political Law at the UST. Subsequently, he also taught Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Election Law, Law on Public Corporation, and Public International Law. He became a Bar reviewer in Political Law.

    From 1988-1990, he worked as legal consultant for the Presidential Committee on the Nuclear Power Plant under the late Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordoñez. Later, he worked as counsel for the Equitable Banking Corp. and its officers and branch managers during the impeachment trial of former President Joseph E. Estrada.

    He authored two books, Practical Book in Legal Writing in 2002 and Fundamentals of Legal Writing in 2004. He was a contributing staff editor in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) from 1972 to 1996.

    He has conducted a seminar and workshop in Legal Writing and Research in 2007 for the attorneys and investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman upon the invitation of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Rule of Law Effectiveness (ROLE), and CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Likewise, he lectured to the research attorneys of the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals regarding the preparation of judicial memoranda.

    He also has rendered free legal aid for the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and the Angels of Hope Orphanage, Pulong Bunga, Silang, Cavite. He has also conducted weekend training for lay and religious catechists for the Archdiocese of Manila.

    He is married to the former Victoria Martinez, a lawyer, with whom he has four children, namely, Liliarosa, Ma. Leila, Rex Niño, and Blessilda.

     
  6. stewardsecretsofgod

    June 7, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    THIS IS THE BIO OF Justice Antonio T. Carpio
    SOURCE: Supreme Court of the Philippines

    BORN IN DAVAO CITY, PHILIPPINES, Justice Antonio T. Carpio was sworn in as member of the Supreme Court on October 26, 2001. Justice Carpio obtained his law degree from the College of Law of the University of the Philippines (UP.) where he graduated valedictorian and cum laude in 1975. He placed sixth in the 1975 Bar Examinations. He earned his undergraduate degree in Economics from Ateneo de Manila University in 1970.

    In his student days, Justice Carpio was chairman of the Editorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal of the U.P. College of Law. He was Editor-in-Chief of The Guidon, the school paper of Ateneo de Manila University. He also served as Managing Editor of the Philippine Collegian, the school paper of the University of the Philippines.

    Fresh out of law school, Justice Carpio went into private practice until 1992. He was a Professorial Lecturer of the U.P. College of Law from 1983 until 1992 when he was appointed Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, Office of the President of the Philippines. In 1997, he was Executive Director of the ASEAN Business Law program of the U.P. College of Law.

    Justice Carpio also held other important government positions before assuming office as Supreme Court Justice. He was a member of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines from 1993 to 1998. He was a member of the Technology Transfer Board of the Department of Industry from 1978 to 1979. He served as Special Representative of the Department of Trade for textile negotiations from 1980 to 1981. He also held numerous prestigious posts such as President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pasay-Makati Chapter (1985-1986). He served as Director of the U.P. Law Alumni Association (1984-1989) and Director of the Philippine Bar Association (1989-1990).

    For his “distinguished and exemplary service” to the Republic, Justice Carpio was awarded in 1998 the Presidential Medal of Merit by then President Fidel Ramos. In 1991, Justice Carpio received the Outstanding Achievement Award in Law from the Ateneo de Manila Alumni Association. In 2002, he was also the recipient of the Distinguished Alumnus Award from the Ateneo de Davao Alumni Association.

    Justice Carpio is the Working Chair of the First Division, Chair of the Committee on Strengthening the Institutional Capacity of the Judiciary and Co-Chair of the Oversight Committee on Halls of Justice. He is Vice-Chair of the Committees on Legal Education and Bar Matters; Public Information; and Knowledge Sharing and Regional Cooperation. He is a member of the Committees on Legislative-Executive Relations; Management Committee for Judicial Reform Support Project; Zero Backlog Cases; Security for the Judiciary; and Senate Electoral Tribunal. Justice Carpio is also Chair of the Project Board for the Judicial Reform Handbook of the Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum.

     
  7. Sonny

    June 7, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    I am impressed to the dissenting opinion of the newly appointed Justice of Supreme Court, no other than Justice Roberto Abad and also to the highly competent and independent, who repudiated the supposed to be midnight appointment of outgoing President Arroyo for Chief Justice post, Justice Antonio Carpio.

    The legal points raised by two well renowned justices perpetually raise hollering substantial arguments. Nagging questions of Justice Abad which the majority of justices of SC failed to meet, such as Do they deserve to be suspended for 3 months, the Ang Dating Daan television program which aired for more than 27 years with no malign records, due to a 15 second outburst because of INC’s provocation?

    did he (Bro. Eli) use the grossest language?

    To add on that, Did Bro. Eli advocate prostitution and other prurient act?

    Those questions are only answerable Yes, if the Iglesia ni Cristo’s tv program “Ang Tamang Daan” will be asked because they’re the one who advocate prostitution and prurient act by encouraging their viewers to read malicious and porn magazines, as Michael Sandoval, one of the INC’s minister, encourage their viewers to do so.

    To borrow the words of Justice Abad,

    “The Court’s decision will not be a victory for the children but for the Iglesia ni Cristo, finally enabling it to silence an abhorred competing religious belief and its practices.”

    and to borrow the words of Justice Carpio on the freedom of speech and of religion perspective

    “Television and radio commentators, broadcasters and their guests will now tremble in fear at this new censorship power of the MTRCB. The majority opinion has invested the MTRCB with the broadest censorship power since William Blackstone wrote in 1765 that “the liberty of the press x x x consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications.” This is one of the saddest and darkest days for freedom of expression in this country.”

     
  8. Mark Jay

    June 7, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    God is good unto to us. He will give us justice in the right time. Now, justice can be seen in the sky because of God’s infinite goodness. He only wants to teach us to be patient; learn to wait, learn to love. This is similar to “Blessing in Disguise”

    Thanks be to God.

     
  9. Jeffrey Eugenio

    June 8, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Great respect for them!

    Judges, like them, are those needed by our country as bulwark of our freedom. Justice Abad and Justice Carpio are able to use their forensic skills to protect the rights of an individual such as Bro. Eli against the capriciousness of the Iglesia ni Manalo. That really inspires great confidence!

    Though, their opinion may provoke the anger of the ministers of INM and they could also be victims of revenge, I certainly believe and hope they are men of courage. Thus, I appeal to let us also include them and the likes in our prayers.

    God bless them!

     
  10. Vlad Pablo

    June 8, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    It’s amazing!

    Thanks be to God for these people who never compromised with the INM or any other rats who attack the Truth!

    To God be the glory!!!

     
  11. ltjourneyman

    June 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    HE teaches the poor and the RICH
    the ordinary people and the ELITE
    the uneducated and the JUSTICES
    for WE all have to be saved
    (sana maging kagaya nila ang president and vice president ng Pilipinas)
    PARA sa BAYAN
    mabuhay po kayo JUSTICES ABAD and CARPIO

     
  12. boytutong

    June 9, 2010 at 2:11 am

    so ecstatic…

     
  13. theophilus

    June 9, 2010 at 5:58 am

    I was reading this and find myself laughing too much. So true!!!

     
  14. dhenzmuzikero

    June 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    God bless them….

    kung ganyan ang mga lider natin sa Pinas….

    malaki ang magiging tiwala ko sa gobyerno…..

     
  15. Ren Newman

    June 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Do all religious shows on TV like Ang Dating Daan were generally given a “G” rating or “General Audience”? Is it an appropriate classification considering that religious shows like ADD are tackling more serious issues?

    I’m just wondering if ADD was given a PG-13 rating, would the decision of the SC judges favor Soriano.

    Anyway, I was reading this news article on ABS-CBN http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/04/30/09/sc-sustains-suspension-ang-dating-daan and the first thing that raised my eyebrow is that statement saying that “Soriano founded the religious sect ADD, a breakaway group of the Iglesia Ni Cristo sect.” which was inserted as if it’s true or if not, as if it’s a common knowledge.

    I am challenging all those journalists who repeatedly say that to cite their source to back up that stupid claim.

    For if they can’t, then STFU! Please get your report straight next time.

    Here are clues:
    – ADD is not a religious sect, it’s the acronym of the TV program Ang Dating Daan.
    – Soriano is not a founder of religion but a leader. Know the difference, ok.
    – ADD has never been affiliated to INC nor Soriano became a minister of that cult. Therefore, the claim that ADD is a breakaway group of INC is derogative statement for me as a member of the Church of God Int’l.

     
    • carlmags

      August 31, 2010 at 3:49 am

      true, whenever they are writing that ADD is a breakaway group of INM, for me its derogative statemenent…its even offending!

       
    • Jenn

      March 30, 2012 at 12:30 am

      Shouldn’t they get penalized or suspended from their profession for disseminating a false information? That’s very irresponsible and unethical.

       
  16. Ginna Lopez

    June 10, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    10.06.11 Fri 2:03a PHT

    Alas, a servant of Christ “bites the dust” – but that’s ‘a given’ in this decadent, Godless world.

    This ‘ruling’ doesn’t come as a shock or surprise to yours truly – all the Apostles including the Prophets, and no less than Christ Himself, were persecuted also – nothing has changed from Adam to the present.

    Where there are still men (and women) who know not the REAL Truth,there will be evil of this sort.

    Anyone who upholds God’s Teachings must be prepared to meet with persecution of all kinds…and that my friends, is the ONLY way to Him and His Kingdom – and no one said it would be easy, either.

     
  17. Ren Newman

    June 10, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Why is Ang Dating Daan once again been given a suspension from airing for another 3 months even though that the said permissible sanction (not a prior restraint) of MTRCB as ruled by SC has already been served years ago?

    I really think that if only ADD was not been rated “G” but rather “PG-13″ considering that it’s a religious show tackling more serious issues, the majority’s decision of SC would reasonably favor Eliseo Soriano’s so called “indecent utterance” against that INC minister complainant even just by applying that context-based analysis of theirs.

    It’s saddening how fucked-up a system that we can have here just to favor these influence peddlers of the country. May the Almighty GOD of justice forgive them all.

    Well somehow it’s still consoling to know that we have yet some justices of the land who knows how to dissent to an injustice decision. And most especially, knowing that the real and final justice that everyone seeks is not here but unto the hands of the Almighty GOD in that day to come.

     
  18. gene galvez

    June 10, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    May our God in heaven bless you, I thank our Lord for the rightful thinking of these judges. We will continue to fight for our freedom, for the right to spread the good news to humanity.

     
  19. Leo

    June 11, 2010 at 4:06 am

    makapal ang tao ng Dios sa bansang ito. Walang magagawa ang sinumang tao sa kalooban ng Dios. All i can say, salamat sa Dios! To all brethren, madami po tayong dapat ipagpasalamat, kaya…….. Happy International Thanksgiving to God!!! To God be the Glory!

     
  20. topman99

    June 11, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I have nothing to say…one word only…” Thanks God “

     
  21. rogelio c. alaan

    June 11, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    I thanks Almighty GOD that we are not alone,God had blessed this people to be also with us walking to the road were the light of the truth is shinning thru.

     
    • victor

      June 14, 2010 at 11:18 am

      “All things works for good for those who love God.”

       
  22. huckfin

    June 16, 2010 at 12:59 am

    Thanks be to God…

     
  23. Marl

    June 20, 2010 at 5:13 am

    You must all remember that in our life, were being surrounded by all demons and God always tested our limits.he let us choose and give us to think independently.
    Now,Good man sometimes blinded us for his good deeds and his apperance, the inner desires and intentions is hide in between his brain and his self, nobody knows what he is up to!a man will always be presented himself to be a good and make believes to other.The truth is living in our hearth that we cannot lie!
    I am not saying that a person who works for justice is the same of what im implying, in fainess to them. but some of our justices is also maneuver by different sect.
    I know for a fact and it happens to many times.

    Justice,lawyers depends on the book of law!

    Preachers depends on the bible!

    its up to the person how you used it to make it right.

    Justice can make the law wrong and preacher can lead people to make the bible wrong!

     
    • kotawinters

      June 23, 2010 at 5:45 am

      Marl :

      You must all remember that in our life, were being surrounded by all demons and God always tested our limits.he let us choose and give us to think independently.
      Now,Good man sometimes blinded us for his good deeds and his apperance, the inner desires and intentions is hide in between his brain and his self, nobody knows what he is up to!….

      Justice can make the law wrong and preacher can lead people to make the bible wrong!

      @Marl, please explain yourself better!

       
  24. elmantheman

    June 23, 2010 at 2:54 am

    I observed that these two justices: Justice Roberto A. Abad and Justice Antonio T. Carpio. took care of their name, very dignified, because they really dug deeper to the situation, including those people involved, that is, putting their personal interests aside and letting fairness and justice lead them to the truth. May God bless you Justice Roberto A. Abad and Justice Antonio T. Carpio all your life and grace you with more spiritual understanding.

     
  25. Robert dimaguiba

    June 27, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Dear Justice Roberto A. Abad,
    Ikaw ay isang tunay na taong marangal, ang kagaya mo ay dapat mag-kamit ng supporta ng dios at ng madlang pilipino.
    Ipagpatuloy po ninyo ang kabutihan ninyong nasimulan,
    ingatan ka nawa ng panginoon. nasa likod po ninyo ang dios.

     
  26. Alex B000517

    June 27, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    Alex B000517 :
    Justice will always be in the Philippines, I always believed that they were given knowledge and intellect to be fair at all times. Maraming salamat sa Dios.

     
  27. kuyaAbs

    June 28, 2010 at 1:30 am

    ikinararangal ko ang 2 taong ito (ABAD and CARPIO) na sa kabila na lumalaganap ang kurapsyon sa lahat halos ng ahensiya ng gov’t but still they stand in their principle.

    I am also thankful also dahil kahit alam nilang maraming di matutuwa sa kanilang opinyong ipinalabas pero di un naging hadlang para di sila magsalita. I am praying to GOD for their safety in all aspects.

    Bro. Eli we know the truth behind these things, umasa ka pong nasa panig mo kami dito sa sorsogon. We feel what you feel. Tama ka po “may GOD’s justice prevail” We proud of you Bro Eli!!!!!!!KASAMA NATIN ANG DIOS SA LABAN!!!

     
  28. radny maguad

    July 6, 2010 at 1:14 am

    i have been a follower of the Ang Dating Daan on tv,radio and internet,i deeply appreciate the efforts of this two honorable justices.during this time it seems that the truth is being outnumbered.to bro.eli i know God is with you,the truth of the Lord is with the program Ang Dating Daan…

     
  29. Jo King

    August 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    As always ADD is looking on ways to defend the vulgarity often practice by their pastor when he is caught in an embarrassing contradictory statements that he himself actually made.

    And they wallow in the dissenting opinions of these judges as a solace of the severity of the punishment inflicted on their program. Well, if there pastor could only follow what he is preaching then he would not have allowed himself to indulge in PROFANITIES instead of answering contradictions he himself have made.

    Allow me to comment for example of what Abad pointed out he said here:

    “Actually, the Court concedes that petitioner Soriano’s short outburst was not in the category of the obscene. It was just “indecent.” But were his words and their meaning utterly indecent? In a scale of 10, did he use the grossest language? He did not.”

    In Abad’s dissenting opinion, he raised a question “were his words and their meaning utterly indecent?” and from a scale of 10 he says based on HIS OPINION…Soriano’s is NOT UTTERLY INDECENT in his OPINION. But unfortunately not everyone would agree to that point. Whatever Abad feels the Profanities uttered by Soriano is still and UNQUESTIONABLY INDECENT. And coming from a self proclaimed preacher of Christianity…makes it more INDECENT is why such a preacher cannot EVEN HOLD HIS TONGUE in PUBLIC media.

    The issue is not even if whether Soriano’s PROFANITIES had in somehow made with RESTRAINT as Abad’s OPINION would like to dwell. But on the simple TRUTH that such Profanities is NOT ALLOWED even in their midst. And is PUNISHABLE under our laws. Just because Soriano is a preacher does not make him above the law or should even be given any FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION just because of it. It ACTUALLY tells many that HOW CAN A PREACHER of CHRISTIANITY indulge in such INDECENT acts of PROFANITIES??? Lessons in Christianity tells of people like this to be who profess to be an angel of light but in TRUTH his ACTIONs betrays him. We should be thankful to have known Soriano’s true character and be wary of such a person or any person for that matter.

    If it were just an unguarded outburst with no intention to malign another person Abad might have a point. But a lot of people know especially the ADD members how Soriano REGULARLY INDULGEs in PROFANITIES to malign another person in public.

    People are ENTITLED to their OPINION likewise these judges are entitled to theirs but the heart of the matter is these opinions remain to be just that “Opinion’s” and NOT THE JUDGMENT of the Supreme Court as a whole. Thus protecting our children and people from such INDECENT OUTBURST OF PROFANITIEs which should never be aired on national TV.

    It was never a question Freedom of Speech but of ones GRAVE ABUSE of that freedom. That is why we have our Courts to JUDGE these INDECENT ACTs. 3 Months is but a slap in the hand. But the most important issue that was resolve is NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

    So I ask the ADD members, does INDULGING in INDECENT PROFANITIES ever HELPED you in arriving in the TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTIANITY?

     
    • kotawinters

      August 4, 2010 at 7:10 am

      Jo King,

      YOU SAID> As always ADD is looking on ways to defend the vulgarity often practice by their pastor when he is caught in an embarrassing contradictory statements that he himself actually made.

      I am sorry, you are starting on a premise that only you and your group believe in. You have to be truthful first in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.

      YOU ALSO SAID> And they wallow in the dissenting opinions of these judges as a solace of the severity of the punishment inflicted on their program.

      Haha! Whoever said dissenting opinions are equated to lies? We believe in truth and it is truth we listen to. If ever Bro. Soriano described you as such and such, it is because it is the truth. Go bask in the lies that you have made of yourself and may God rebuke you!

       
      • Jo King

        August 4, 2010 at 8:29 am

        Wrong premise? so are you saying that ADD was just doing it for the heck of it? Sorry too, but it isn’t me whose starting with the wrong premise. That would be you.

        Come again “Whoever said dissenting opinions are equated to lies?”…well dear kota…whoever said that dissenting opinions are equated to the truth?

        Come again “If ever Bro. Soriano described you as such and such, it is because it is the truth.” Excuse me dear, if you weren’t an ADD I might have mistook you for a comedian. Your preacher was not into the truth dear when he got caught…he was indulging in his INDECENT PROFANITIES as usual but unfortunately got caught with his big mouth.

        I’m sure you would agree. Otherwise we won’t be discussing the dissenting opinions of these judges in the first place.

         
      • cocoy

        January 7, 2011 at 3:27 am

        Jo King,

        well I hope what you are saying is just what your name means… anyway, you must have not seen what your minister have spoken towards Soriano on air, or you don’t mind at all just like mtrcb. It is more libelous on its strictness sense calling someone, “dayukdok sa pera, manghuhuthut… etc” pointing to Soriano’s character. These contradictions you are trying to say, why not speak this out in a debate, one on one from INC vs Soriano? You know why? Simply because, INC can not prove any of it and so are you, jo-king. INC will never engage on a debate against ADD. That is for sure. I rest my case, bow.

         
  30. Jo King

    August 4, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Carpio presented a good argument putting in front some sample of indecent speech. But if you look closely to the speech. The speaker never in anyway MALIGNED any person in his speech. The speaker merely used unsavory words in his speech mainly because that is how he relates in his circle, it’s his natural way of expressing himself. The use of unsavory words again is not the just the point being discussed but USING IT TO MALIGN another persons integrity is a very serious matter that should be considered Especially if were done in public.

    Do you think Judge Carpio will allow someone to use unsavory words against his person or even to his family IN PUBLIC? Really now. Carpio is entitled to his Opinion but if his dissenting opinion would be cross examined to the point of being subjected to same VERBAL ABUSE in his person. He may reconsider his opinion all together. Who won’t? especially coming from a person thought to be a PREACHER of Christianity. Who in our civil society look up to as a good example of noble and well mannered person.

    Carpio’s example of a person brandishing unsavory words is known to use such words in his social circle. We don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that. In that public speech he was in no way MALIGNING anyone’s person in public. Now did he? can we say the same for Soriano? I don’t think so. If that person who used those unsavory words were a PREACHER…would you think it to be NATURAL?

    I don’t think so too.

     
  31. Jo King

    August 4, 2010 at 8:10 am

    I thank Abad despite his dissenting opinion put forth a good final advice:

    “I vote to partially grant the motion for reconsideration by modifying the three-month suspension penalty imposed on the program Ang Dating Daan. In its place, I vote to raise the program’s restriction classification from G or General Patronage to PG or with Parental Guidance for three months with warning that should petitioner Soriano commit the same violation, the classification of his program will be permanently changed or, if the violation is persistent, the program will be altogether cancelled.”

    Take note his vote is to PARTIALLY GRANT the motion for reconsideration. But it goes with a STRONG CONDITION. That if Sriano commits the same violation his program will be permanently changed or if the VIOLATION IS PERSISTENT the PROGRAM WILL BE ALTOGETHER CANCELLED.

    I’m sure ADD members would agree to Abad’s POINT. Good luck. Hope you can harness your preacher’s indulgence to profanities.

     
  32. kotawinters

    August 4, 2010 at 8:13 am

    @Jo King

    YOU SAID: Carpio presented a good argument putting in front some sample of indecent speech. But if you look closely to the speech. The speaker never in anyway MALIGNED any person in his speech. The speaker merely used unsavory words in his speech mainly because that is how he relates in his circle, it’s his natural way of expressing himself. The use of unsavory words again is not the just the point being discussed but USING IT TO MALIGN another persons integrity is a very serious matter that should be considered Especially if were done in public. Do you think Judge Carpio will allow someone to use unsavory words against his person or even to his family IN PUBLIC? <

    Haha! Of course, if you put up straws, it will be straws you will be boxing against. What are you arguing about? Are we saying anything against Judge Carpio?

    In the first place, you should settle yourself about what maligning means before you go on and on to pile up arguments.

     
    • Jo King

      August 4, 2010 at 8:43 am

      Come again dear Kota you say “What are you arguing about? Are we saying anything against Judge Carpio?”

      I regret that if you can’t even tell the TRUTH from INDECENT PROFANITIES which your preacher is doing, its no wonder your clueless to what was posted.

      It’s not me who should be looking for what maligning means dearest, it should be you. You should go search and settle it yourself because if your head can’t assimilate the meaning of the word why would you ask me or any person for that matter to settle it for you? Are you that ignorant?

      But thanks dear. your statement is good…good for laughs. Really can’t say if your just kidding around pretending to be intelligent or just plain ignorant or something. No pun intended.

       
  33. kotawinters

    August 4, 2010 at 8:17 am

    @Jo King

    You earlier accused us of “wallowing in the dissenting opinions of these judges” which you seem to denigrate.

    And now, wallow, wallow at will. Hehe!

     
    • Jo King

      August 4, 2010 at 8:48 am

      denigrate? by in no means dear Kota. Of course not, How can I ever denigrate or belittle such wallowing it thats what you wish.

      How can I ever stop you from doing such a thing if it makes you happy? It would be presumptuous of me to ever do that. See, at least your “hehe” meant your happy with your wallowing.

      Please do continue dear. Don’t let me stop you(“,)

       
  34. elmantheman

    August 16, 2010 at 5:00 am

    JO King, since you mentioned Christianity, and said that, “If that person who used those unsavory words were a PREACHER…would you think it to be NATURAL? I don’t think so too.”

    Yes, you made your point, yet to obvious to cover and box someone’s Christian understanding: you limit it to the doctrines made known to you by your own Minister.

    And, JO King, What is natural for you in your Christian group? What does Jesus Christ commands you, as your God. What does Jesus Christ’s Father tells you about exposing the wickedness of a wicked person? Do you believe Jesus Christ is God, as he is the only begotten son of God? If not, what do you believe in?

    Let’s find out how your Minister taught you by your answers.

     
  35. vonsky

    December 24, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    You said “So I ask the ADD members, does INDULGING in INDECENT PROFANITIES ever HELPED you in arriving in the TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTIANITY?”

    You must investigate first before you ask this kind of question. Ask first how did it arrived in that situation…what have they done to Bro. Eli’s broadcast and. Haven’t they said any libelous statement against Bro. Eli even came to a direct “death threat” on a national television broadcast…But it was approved by MTRCB (saan ka pa?) Have a Christian heart and you will never ask again that….question.

     
  36. RANDY BENOSA TAMON

    December 29, 2010 at 4:24 am

    “THE TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL”

     
  37. SHANE

    January 4, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    PEOPLE. LISTEN. IAM PROUD TO BE A TRUE CHRISTIAN, ANG SINASAMBA KO AY ANG AMA AT SI JESUS,
    KUNG AKO AY KABILANG SA CATHOLIC RELIGION OR IGLESIA NI CRISTO, ANO ANG TAWAG SA AKING DIYOS,
    JESUS IS CHRIST ! THE FATHER IS ALMIGHTY ONE, IBIG SABIHIN CHRIST IS CHRISTIANITY!
    PWEDE BANG TAWAGIN CHRISTIANITY ANG ISANG CATHOLIC OR SA INC SI JESUS AY TAO AT ANG DIYOS AY C MANALO.
    PWE…..MALAKING PANG INSULTO AT PAGHAMAK SA PANGINOON ANG PAGSAMBA SA MGA TAONG DEMONYO NA HUMAHAMAK SA AKING PANGINOON.
    BAKIT HINDI NINYO KAYANG ITUWID ANG NAKAGISNANG PANG IINSULTO SA ATING PANGINOON JESUS CRISTO. AYAW MOBANG MATAWAG NA ISA KANG CHRISTIANISMO AT HINDI CATHOLICO O
    ISANG INC.
    MAAWA NAMAN KAYO SA INYONG KALULUWA, ANG BUHAY NG TAO AY HINDI NA TUMATAGAL SA 80
    MAY PANAHON PA NA TANGGAPIN NA TAYO AY ISANG CHRISTIANISMO KUNG SI JESUS AY TANGGAP NYO NA ANAK NG DIYOS, ANG VERVO AY NAGKATAWANG TAO .. AT ANG VERVO AY DIYOS… AMEN

     
  38. mecojh

    July 6, 2011 at 8:04 am

    I AM PROUD TO BE A TRUE CHRISTIAN…SALAMAT SA DIOS AT NAKAKITA AKO NG TUNAY NA TINATAWAG NA NASATOTOO KANG PANANAMPALATAYA.

     
  39. Glenn

    October 18, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    You can say all you want about Eli’s seemingly “harmless” intention, all in the name of rule of law. You can always find a “lusot” in our laws because it’s man-made. Mali pa rin si Soriano dito. If Christ was here and does the preaching, will we hear him use a slang word like “puta” to demean someone? Jesus loved the woman at the well who had 5 five husbands, the woman who the people who threw stones at and was told to “sin no more”. Galit po sia sa kasalanan pero mahal nia ang makasalanan. THe reason why Christ talks about and warns people about condemnation is because we are all dead in sin. Si Eli galit sa lahat ng tao na nag di-disagree sa kanya dahil tingin nia tama sia lagi. He may have memorized the whole Bible and seems to have figured out every doctrine but his spirit is still dead to sin. Only the Spirit of God can give him life. He still has to be born again like anyone else or else he will go to hell like those he condemns. He has not apolgized for any wrong doctrine he has uttered. Tao lang yan at di perfect kaya he is prone to doctrinal errors and common mistakes. Sa kanya walang assurance of salvation, kanya kanyang kayod at kanya kanyang sunod far from being sure where his deeds will lead him.

     
    • kotawinters

      October 19, 2011 at 1:51 am

      Glenn, I am afraid you also have the world’s warped view of LOVE. Love, in God’s view, does not mean you love everybody including God’s enemies. We are commanded to hate what is evil. That is why there are words that can be said to describe what is true. A preacher sent by God is one who is NOT afraid to calll a spade a spade. And this fits Bro. Eli Soriano to a T. Bro. Eli hating what is evil is appreciated only by those who eyes were opened to truth.

      Born again? Brother, you do not even understand what you are saying. Being born again does not refer to those who call themselves “born again.” This applies to sinners that have repented and whose sins were washed through baptism. After that, there is a life of submission to truth.

      It appears that you have personal axes to grind against Bro. Eli. YOU SAID –

      Si Eli galit sa lahat ng tao na nag di-disagree sa kanya dahil tingin nia tama sia lagi. He may have memorized the whole Bible and seems to have figured out every doctrine but his spirit is still dead to sin. Only the Spirit of God can give him life. He still has to be born again like anyone else or else he will go to hell like those he condemns. He has not apolgized for any wrong doctrine he has uttered. Tao lang yan at di perfect kaya he is prone to doctrinal errors and common mistakes. Sa kanya walang assurance of salvation, kanya kanyang kayod at kanya kanyang sunod far from being sure where his deeds will lead him.

      That is your problem. To say a mouthful against someone without even trying to know what Bro. Eli is preaching is blanket denial of truth. That is your problem. But for those earnestly seeking for truth, they have found in Bro. Eli what they were looking for.

      Does Bro. Eli preach himself that you say salvation is not found in him? No, he does not. He recognizes that he is only an instrument. In sum, let anyone follow whom he thinks truth can be found: by following whoever is God’s appointed faithful one.

      Kanya-kanyang kayod? Doing God’s work is not profit to Bro. Eli. In fact, he even spends for the ministry. I am sorry, but you sound like one defending his position as another wanna-be messenger. A false preacher in the words of Bro. Eli.

      Go your way and time will come. The end will come wherein everything will be revealed. This is what Bro. Eli keeps saying. Go your way; believe what you will. The choice is yours. Follow him who can teach you God’s ways.

      In the Born Again groups, anyone can preach and assume himself called to preach. That is not so with Bro. Eli. You have to be called before going to preach God’s words because the commodity is very delicate. And so it is not anyone.

       
    • the Whit

      October 20, 2011 at 8:01 am

      Glenn,

      Your “seem” is just an opinion of someone who has prejudgment of somebody. Your prejudgment is your own “lusot” to hate someone who is innocent and someone who have not done wrong unto you. If man-made laws are not “seemingly” perfect in your own point of view then how much imperfect are your prejudices?

      … Mali pa rin si Soriano dito. If Christ was here and does the preaching, will we hear him use a slang word like “puta” to demean someone?

      Due to misuse of bible verses inculcated by your false preacher, the phrase you used:

      …Jesus loved the woman at the well who had 5 five husbands

      is a biblical crime in itself.

      The woman at the well who had 5 husbands is not a whore or a harlot, she is a Samaritan whom she called Jacob, “our father”, who had faith and knowledge. She spake these words to Jesus: “I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” (Jn. 4:25).

      If she was a whore or “puta”, she would have been identified as one like Rahab who was mentioned twice in Heb. 11:31 and James 2:25.

      Another biblical story that you concocted:

      the woman who the people who threw stones at and was told to “sin no more”

      In Jn 8:7 Jesus said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

      Having cited the aforementioned verses, it is clear that there was no man who dared to first cast a stone at her as opposed to your baseless foundation.

      Another false misrepresentation of your example of “puta” is this woman whom Jesus saved. She is not “puta” she is an adulterer (Joh 8:4 “They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act). Adulterers and harlots are different Glenn, please refer to Merriam-Webster.

      If that woman will be taken out of the grave, she’ll have her own outburst of madness to you Glenn for accusing her wrongly.

      That same outburst caused Bro. Eli a three-month suspension by MTRCB, a defense against the malicious attack by Michael which was the subject of dissenting opinion of the two honorable judges. The words uttered by Bro. Eli are not to demean Michael. It is the exact definition of Michael’s mouth wherein the words coming out of it are all dirt and garbage because of lies.

      You also said:

      THe reason why Christ talks about and warns people about condemnation is because we are all dead in sin.

      If you are all dead in sin in which your church taught you, then your god is not our God which was written in Mat. 22:32 “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living”.

      Another hype propaganda of yours is accusing bro. Eli as;

      Si Eli galit sa lahat ng tao na nag di-disagree sa kanya dahil tingin nia tama sia lagi. He may have memorized the whole Bible and seems to have figured out every doctrine but his spirit is still dead to sin. Only the Spirit of God can give him life. He still has to be born again like anyone else or else he will go to hell like those he condemns. He has not apolgized for any wrong doctrine he has uttered…

      You have so much anger in your heart, it’s so thick that even the tiniest of atom in the universe could feel and touch it. You’re the one who’s “galit sa lahat ng tao”, to accuse everyone as dead in sin unless they are born again is another misuse of biblical verse. Kotawinters gave you the hint of the true meaning of “born again”.

      Bro. Eli is not mad at everyone, he has helped countless souls. He teaches love thy enemy, which does not exclude you and the likes of you who have grudges agaist him.

      You like to condemn people especially those whom you hate and in opposition to what you believe. You’re threatening everyone to be in hell. You even demand Bro. Eli to apologize, for what? You accused him of uttering wrong doctrines. What wrong doctrines did he utter? I challenge you to state them one by one, here and now.

      Bro. Eli not siding on what you believe is the main reason why you have deep seated anger within your heart.

      You state:

      Tao lang yan at di perfect kaya he is prone to doctrinal errors and common mistakes. Sa kanya walang assurance of salvation, kanya kanyang kayod at kanya kanyang sunod far from being sure where his deeds will lead him.

      Bro. Eli with the help and mercy of God is not prone to doctrinal errors. He is not like you who made biblical errors which were already corrected in the previous paragraphs.

      The words you said in the end rightly fit you, because in you there is no assurance of salvation, “kanya kanyang kayod at kanya kanyang sunod” far from being sure where your deeds will lead you.

       
      • kotawinters

        November 1, 2011 at 12:48 am

        Whit,

        Please make changes in the way you respond.

        You don’t have to quote all the bits and pieces of the person. Incorporate them in your response, please.

         
    • the Whit

      October 20, 2011 at 8:14 am

      Glenn,

      Your “seem” is just an opinion of someone who has prejudgment of somebody. Your prejudgment is your own “lusot” to hate someone who is innocent and someone who have not done wrong unto you. If man-made laws are not “seemingly” perfect in your own point of view then how much imperfect are your prejudices?

      Glenn :

      … Mali pa rin si Soriano dito. If Christ was here and does the preaching, will we hear him use a slang word like “puta” to demean someone?.

      Due to misuse of bible verses inculcated by your false preacher, the phrase you used:

      Glenn :

      …Jesus loved the woman at the well who had 5 five husbands

      – is a biblical crime in itself. The woman at the well who had 5 husbands is not a whore or a harlot, she is a Samaritan whom she called Jacob, “our father”, who had faith and knowledge. She spake these words to Jesus: “I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” (Jn. 4:25).

      If she was a whore or “puta”, she would have been identified as one like Rahab who was mentioned twice in Heb. 11:31 and James 2:25.

      Another biblical story that you concocted:

      Glenn :

      … the woman who the people who threw stones at and was told to “sin no more”…

      In Jn 8:7 Jesus said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

      Having cited the aforementioned verses, it is clear that there was no man who dared to first cast a stone at her as opposed to your baseless foundation.

      Another false misrepresentation of your example of “puta” is this woman whom Jesus saved. She is not “puta” she is an adulterer (Joh 8:4 “They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act). Adulterers and harlots are different Glenn, please refer to Merriam-Webster.

      If that woman will be taken out of the grave, she’ll have her own outburst of madness to you Glenn for accusing her wrongly.

      That same outburst caused Bro. Eli a three-month suspension by MTRCB, a defense against the malicious attack by Michael which was the subject of dissenting opinion of the two honorable judges. The words uttered by Bro. Eli are not to demean Michael. It is the exact definition of Michael’s mouth wherein the words coming out of it are all dirt and garbage because of lies.

      You also said:

      Glenn :

      …. THe reason why Christ talks about and warns people about condemnation is because we are all dead in sin.

      If you are all dead in sin in which your church taught you, then your god is not our God which was written in Mat. 22:32 “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living”.

      Another hype propaganda of yours is accusing bro. Eli as;

      Glenn :

      …. Si Eli galit sa lahat ng tao na nag di-disagree sa kanya dahil tingin nia tama sia lagi. He may have memorized the whole Bible and seems to have figured out every doctrine but his spirit is still dead to sin. Only the Spirit of God can give him life. He still has to be born again like anyone else or else he will go to hell like those he condemns. He has not apolgized for any wrong doctrine he has uttered…

      You have so much anger in your heart, it’s so thick that even the tiniest of atom in the universe could feel and touch it. You’re the one who’s “galit sa lahat ng tao”, to accuse everyone as dead in sin unless they are born again is another misuse of biblical verse. Kotawinters gave you the hint of the true meaning of “born again”.

      Bro. Eli is not mad at everyone, he has helped countless souls. He teaches love thy enemy, which does not exclude you and the likes of you who have grudges agaist him.

      You like to condemn people especially those whom you hate and in opposition to what you believe. You’re threatening everyone to be in hell. You even demand Bro. Eli to apologize, for what? You accused him of uttering wrong doctrines. What wrong doctrines did he utter? I challenge you to state them one by one, here and now.

      Bro. Eli not siding on what you believe is the main reason why you have deep seated anger within your heart.
      To state:

      Glenn :

      Tao lang yan at di perfect kaya he is prone to doctrinal errors and common mistakes. Sa kanya walang assurance of salvation, kanya kanyang kayod at kanya kanyang sunod far from being sure where his deeds will lead him.

      Bro. Eli with the help and mercy of God is not prone to doctrinal errors. He is not like you who made biblical errors which were already corrected in the previous paragraphs.

      The words you said in the end rightly fit you, because in you there is no assurance of salvation, “kanya kanyang kayod at kanya kanyang sunod” far from being sure where your deeds will lead you.

       
    • ron

      March 19, 2014 at 1:51 am

      una tama si Soriano lagi, bakit kaya pamalian ng lider mo ang sinasabi ni Soriano, subukan natin at iharap mo. sabi memorize ni soriano bible, yun nga eh, bakit ang lider mo hindi memorize?. bakit pag christian ka ba hindi ka born again? kung may wrong doctrine si Soriano ano yun at letrahan mo. bakit may narinig ka na ba na kay soriano na siya ang assurance of salvation at turo ba ng pastor mo ang kanya-kanyang kayod, saan sa bible yun..pag sinabi mo patunayan mo…

       
  40. jr

    October 20, 2011 at 7:39 am

    im proud to be a member CHURCH OF GOD INTERNATIONAL

    salamat sa DIOS sa isang katulad mo Bro.Eli Sriano

     
  41. Glenn

    October 31, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    It is clear that you treat Mr. Soriano as a perfect person, so much like the pope who is in-errant by the Catholics. Even with the grace and mercy of God, he can still make mistakes because he is a sinner like you and me. He too needs salvation.

    Sino po ba sa bibliya ang tinatawag na enemies ng Dios, un lang po tahasang ayaw sumunod sa Panginoon. Si satanas din is called the enemy of God. The only difference between men and satan is God loves men in general. He died for all of us hindi lang ng kakaunti. Nasa individual na tao nayan kung sia ay makikinig sa good news or he will reject it. Kya naging example ko ung woman at well or even si Rahab ay dahil mahal sila ng Dios, sinners as they are with adultery, i am sure hindi sila pangangahasang pagsabbihan ng Dios ng masasakit na ganyan. Maaring sabihin nia ang kasalanan nila pero in a loving way. Hindi sila sisigawan tulad ng ginagawa ni MR. SOriano.

    Umiikot lang lahat po ang mga sinasabi nio. May GOd’s mercy be upon you. Sana po makita nio po ang error ng ways nio. If you repented of your sins and had turned away fr it , then wala tayo dapat pagusapan

    It is true that being born-again is being repentant of my sinful ways. I have been washed by the blood of the Lamb. Nangyari po sa kin yan kaya nagbago po ang takbo ng buhay ko.

    Sabi nio po di ko dapat kayo usgahan o si Mr. Soriano, tingnan nio po lahat ng sinabi nio tungkol sa kin. You have just judged the intention of my heart. You do not even know me. Hindi po ako galit kay Mr. Soriano or sa inyo lahat dian. I do not have any excuse to judge anyone. Sana mas mapag mahal pa ang approach ninyo sa tao. kahit mga batang paslit nagtutong mag mura pag napapanood ang broadcast nio. Sana magkaroon ng teachable heart kayong lahat. Hindi lang puro kau ang tama

     
    • the Whit

      November 1, 2011 at 9:23 am

      Who cares about what’s clear to you? And I pity that person whoever that is. Your perspective of perfection is different from mine.

      We treat Bro. Eli as a just man who also sins ( Ecc 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not) as opposed to what you wrote “as a perfect person … he can still make mistakes”.

      Can you find fault in perfection? No. Perfect as defined in Merriam Webster is “being entirely without fault or defect.” So now you see why I don’t care about what’s clear to you? because your clarity is vagueness to me.

      Your neither a Catholic nor INC. “Born again Christians” like you, Glenn has the vaguest doctrine true Christians has ever heard of: “everyone is a sinner and condemns everyone to hell unless they are born again”. Flat out claim of your false religion.

      You said; “… Nasa individual na tao nayan kung sia ay makikinig sa good news or he will reject it.” So watch and listen to the link below for your enlightenment.

      Whatever your reasons were on your previous post’s example won’t justify the flaws you already committed. You made it worse by adding more blunder by saying;
      “I am sure hindi sila pangangahasang pagsabbihan ng Dios ng masasakit na ganyan. Maaring sabihin nia ang kasalanan nila pero in a loving way…” You have guts to say “I am sure …” then followed by naming God in vain. Why vain you may ask?

      Read this: Mat 23:14 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. “

      Jesus called scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites with an exclamation point in the end. Now is that “in a loving way”?

      And read this too: Mat 21:12 “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,”

      How can you cast out people, throw tables and seats “in a loving way” ?

      You said in your previous post bro. Eli is prone to doctrinal errors and common mistakes. I then challenged you as a response to it, to state the doctrinal errors that he uttered but to no avail. Instead you continued on babbling accusations on us; being unloving people, judgmental, bad examples to children and not having teachable hearts. Read the link below for you to learn the otherwise.

      http://keytothelockedbook.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/bro-eli-is-the-only-preacher-in-the-world-who-uses-those-words/

      The fact that people from different nations come into enlightenment is enough proof that we have teachable hearts, so what you hoped for is within us already.

       
    • biel

      November 1, 2011 at 4:20 pm

      Glenn, if even with the grace and mercy of God he is a sinner like YOU and me, bakit ka dapat paniwalaan ng mga nagbabasa ng comments mo? pkisagot lang po.

       
    • ron

      March 19, 2014 at 2:26 am

      ang ibig sabihin ng satan ay adversary FYI, ano nga ang mali nini Soriano, sabi ka ng sabi na may mali, ano nga yung mali na sinabi? minahal si Rahab dahil sa ginawa niyang mabuti sa lingkod ng Dios, sino ba nagsabi sayo na galit kami sayo, ang amin hindi kami agree sa sinasabi mo kay soriano, sana kasi mag broadcast din kayo ng lider ninyo at mag lagay din kayo ng tanungan para malaman mo na niloloko ka lang ng lider mo, bigyan kita ng isang tanong para sa lider mo, ano ang name ng Church na itinayo ni Kristo? at saan nakabilang ang mga unang Kristiano noon? pag iba yung church mo sa itinayo ni Kristo at nalaman mo ang sagot, mag-isip kapatid, pagmamahal namin sayo yun.

       
  42. kotawinters

    November 1, 2011 at 12:51 am

    Teachable heart.

    I agree, we all should have a teachable heart.

     
  43. Glenn

    November 1, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    I am blessed to have encountered Christ in my life. Kung hindi sa kanyang habag at pagibig, san kayo ako pupulutin? Binibigay ko ang papuri sa Kanya na nagligtas sa akin. Mabuti na lang at lahat ng lumalapit sa Kanya na may tapat na hangaring magsisi at gawin ang Kanyang kalooban ay di nia tinataboy.

    John 6:37 Whatever the Father gives to me will come to me; and I will not send away anyone who comes to me.

    Thank God I have eternal life through His Son. 1 John 5:11-15

    11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
    13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

     
    • biel

      November 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm

      Glenn sinner,

      pkisagot ung tanong sa itaas. ano garantiya ng mga nagbabasa na nagsasabi k ng totoo gayong inaamin mo na sinner ka?

       
    • the Whit

      November 3, 2011 at 3:29 am

      Glenn,

      We are still waiting for you to enumerate the doctrinal errors that bro. Eli uttered.

      Don’t change the subject. Lalo ka lang lulubog sa kakasalita mo. Panindigan mo ang mga sinabi mo sa una mong post dated October 18, 2011 at 10:08 pm.

       
  44. Glenn

    November 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Well i dont have to explain to you. You are not God. Hindi mo po ako saklaw.

    Hindi rin kita mauusgahan kung totoo nga ang repentance mo na ginawa dahil hindi ko din batid ang puso mo. Hindi ko alam kung bakit ganyan kayo. You sow seeds of doubt sa lahat ng nakakausap nio tungkol sa dito. You conclude a lot of things dahil iba ako sa inyo(even the intention of my heart).

    God knows the intentions of my heart. Hindi ko maloloko ang Dios.

    We are all sinners (Rom 3:23) at ang kabayaran ng aking mga kasalanan natin ay kamatayan (Rom 6:23a) subalit sabi din sa Rom 6:23 (patuloy) but the gift of God is eternal life. Ang kamatayan pong yan ay ginawa ng ni Kristo sa Krus. Isang haing buhay (lamb of God) na namatay para sa ating mga kasalanan. I have asked him to come into my life and rule me, it means I decided to follow Him all the way. Ngayon ay suko ang aking buhay sa Kanya. Di ko pa man alam lahat ng bagay pero may pasencia at awa ang Dios , di tulad ninyo, wala kayong pasencia gusto nio kaagad.

    God bless and save you from you get saved from your sins din, sinner.

     
    • kotawinters

      November 3, 2011 at 3:44 am

      Glenn,

      To come to an argument fairly, try to control your pronouns.

      Whom are you addressing when you say “you”? Is that plural or singular? Are you referring to Whit with whom you are discussing? Or are you referring to all the members of the ADD.

      Do not shift with your number. You are really confused when you do that.

      To apply things to everyone when you are dealing with only one is not being fair and just. It is also not logical.

       
    • the Whit

      November 3, 2011 at 3:55 am

      Glenn,

      Well, just to let you know, you’ve been explaining whatever side you have to whom it may concern, so to say that you don’t have to explain to Biel because he is not God, is an understatement.

      Another thing, we can all tell if your sowing seeds of doubt and the intentions of your heart if you cannot state one by one the wrong doctrines that bro. Eli uttered (your claim in your October 18, 2011 at 10:08 pm post).

      Your accusations on us, as having no patience is a sample of what your heart is. You keep accusing us wrongly.

      We’ve been waiting for 2 weeks now. Two weeks is a long wait, so we have been very, very patient to you Glenn the sinner.

       
    • biel

      November 4, 2011 at 5:07 pm

      glenn sinner,

      hindi kita saklaw o hindi mo alam ang sagot? sa kapakanan ng mga kaborn again mo dapat sumagot ka kase maniniwala sila ke Bro Eli instead sa yo..mabuti ang pagkakasabi mo na hindi mo alam ang lahat ng bagay kase lumapit ka kamo ke Cristo pero palagay ko ito sagot nya sa yo Mat 7:21-22.

       
  45. Glenn

    November 3, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all — how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?”
    (Romans 8:32, NIV)

    God loves you so much today — more than you could ever imagine! Not only did He send His Son, Jesus to pay the price for your sins so that He could have relationship with you, He also wants to lavish you with everything He has and everything He is.
    When you join in covenant with Him through the precious blood of Jesus Christ, He makes all things available to you.

    What does “all” mean? It means exactly that — all. Do you need peace? He is your peace. Do you need joy? He has supernatural joy which gives you strength. Do you need restoration in your life? He is your restorer. Do you need rest? He has it. Provision? It’s yours. Protection? That too! He is the single source of everything that you will ever need, and He will freely give it to you!

    Maybe at times you’ve struggled to receive all that He has for you. Maybe you think that you don’t want to bother God, or you somehow think you don’t deserve what He has for you. Friend, those mindsets are not the truth. The truth is that you can’t earn a gift. He gives it freely. Imagine His arms outstretched to you right now. Receive His love, receive His grace, and receive all that He has in store for you!

     
  46. Glenn

    November 3, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    I realize na I will not win hitting all the wrong doctrines of Mr. Soriano against people who always think that they are right. Whenever I throw a verse at you, you throw one back at me and say I am wrong. It is useless discussing with you just like all the ADD i Know. So this is my last comment. I hope that you will all come to your senses in admitting na tao lang ang leader nio and he can be wrong (not just doctrinal but also in other mistakes in his life).

    Consider this verse:

    For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.James 2:10

    Even Paul is the same dilemma:

    Rom 7:19

    For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing.

    Mr. Soriano and all of you who follow him shd realize that he is not perfect, even if you envoke the grace and mercy of God. He is very much prone to mistakes.

    Good bye! I will erase this URL and I am praying that the |Word will minister to you all.

     
    • the Whit

      November 3, 2011 at 6:12 pm

      Glenn,

      You give up too easily.

      You realized too late Glenn. You should have known from the start that you cannot pinpoint any single wrong doctrine that Bro. Eli uttered.

      You were really wrong on using verses. If you are a preacher in your own right, then better quit it, ‘coz you’re not good at it.

      You should have continued discussing with us because you’ll learn a lot from us.

      You keep citing verses in a wrong way. For you to use James 2:10 to state your prejudice on Bro. Eli’s imperfections and to connect it to Paul’s personal battle in Rom 7:19 doesn’t correlate each other.

      Should you have continued discussing with us, you would have learned that these two verses are mutually exclusive.

       
    • biel

      November 4, 2011 at 5:35 pm

      glenn perfect sinner,

      kawikaan 28:1

       
  47. NGANGA

    August 14, 2012 at 6:41 am

    NGA!NGA! GOBYERNO! BASTA MAY PAKINABANG KAHIT MALI! KAKAMPIHAN!

    PAKINGGAN NYO MGA PINAPA ERE SA RADYO SA GABI.. iFM BA YUN!? LOVE RADIO BA YUN!? WALA PA SA KALINGKINGAN NA KATARANTADUHAN PINAPAERE DUN EH, CONFESSIONS NG MGA MALILIBOG? TANYO MGA TAO SA PROBINSYANG NAKAKAPAKINIG DOON! DAMI NA RERAPE!
    … KESA JAN SA DEBATE NG ADD AT INManalo… BUTI PA YANG BANGAYAN NILA AT MAY NALILIWANAGAN! MAY TUMITINO!

     
  48. Sis Minnah Monemi

    November 4, 2013 at 5:26 am

    Salamat sa Dios, dahil nagtitiwala kami sa magagawa ng Dios at hindi sa magagawa ng tao. (ROMA 8:28)

     
  49. gratefulcreation

    March 12, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    it’s nice to know that in a sea of corruption, there are still a rare few who are fair and intelligent..as it is written in the bible, the triumph of the wicked is short..thanks be to God.

     
  50. the Whit

    April 21, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    Thanks be to God that there are no more detractors of this blog, it’s been 3 years that the likes of Glenn have been quiet in the dark.

     
  51. Johnk604

    August 20, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    I really like your writing style, great info, thank you for putting up

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,442 other followers

%d bloggers like this: