Ang dating daan vs iglesia ni cristo
Ang dating daan vs iglesia ni cristo - school dating guide
Documentary exhibits submitted by the defense consisted mostly of video tapes and DVDs to prove consistent patterns of mangling of tapes by the Iglesia ni Cristo on statements made by Soriano.
The Members of the Church of God International denies several doctrines such as the Trinity and salvation by grace alone.
Soriano and his co-hosts in UNTV denied in their program the INC allegation and said the selling was being done outside of the worship areas. In part, the court decision said – “The scene of the crime was within the compounds of the Iglesia ni Cristo in Sta.
The topic for the day in their program turned into which is more disrespectful: selling outside the church or killing in the basement of the chapel? Ana and the basement thereof had been witness to the gruesome torture of victims who were eventually found floating in the murky rivers of Pasig. where 5 PUP students were bludgeoned to death by INC members over a mere basketball game has since become a matter of public interest and therefore open to public scrutiny.
On September 27, 2004, the MTRCB extended the suspension to three months.
Soriano challenged the action in court, arguing that the suspension imposed by the MTRCB constituted prior restraint on the media and that his language during the show's August 10, 2004 broadcast was not obscene and offensive. Soriano filed a motion seeking the reversal of its April 2009 decision.
It is only in despotism that one must speak sub rosa, or in whispers, with bated breath, around the corner, or in the dark on a subject touching the common welfare…” The court also took note that when accused Eliseo Soriano peppered the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo with cases of libel in 2005 for calling him names like “Dayukdok,: “Mandarambong, “Mongongotong, “Matakaw sa pera,” “Seaman-loloko,” among many other names through their program, Ang Tamang Daan, the cases were dismissed on the ground that they did not show any defamatory imputations and for lack of malice.
The same was observed when the INC members distorted Soriano’s speeches and commentaries.
By Jane Abao Manila, Philippines (3/8/2014) – The court is not at all convinced that there exists a case for libel when making remarks from the reading of a Supreme Court Decision over a crime committed on a public figure’s grounds. Paneda of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 220 of the National Capital Judicial Region of Quezon City, Bro.
Eliseo Soriano and his co-hosts at UNTV37 were acquitted of the crime of libel even when they were calling the chapel of the Iglesia ni Cristo, “killing fields” and “katayan.” Comments are considered privileged communication when the subject in question is a public figure whose calling gives the public a legitimate interest in its doings, the decision said.
On its 35th anniversary, Ang Dating Daan held a special anniversary presentation last October 12, 2015 at the Smart Araneta Coliseum featuring the ADD Chorale. It was aired LIVE via satellite and over the internet exclusively in over 1,360 monitoring centers of ADD worldwide.
It also marked the official attempt of MCGI to break the Guinness world record for the "Largest Gospel Choir in a Single Location." Under the supervision of Guinness official adjudicator and independent auditing firm Punongbayan & Araullo Grant Thorton, the Guinness world record was awarded to MCGI with a total of 8,688 choristers from the ADD Chorale beating the previous record held by the Philippine religious group Iglesia Ni Cristo with 4,745 participants during their 100th centennial anniversary at the Philippine Arena.
They then discussed the Supreme Court decision in People vs. “Private complainants took offense, more so hurt, when with the reading of the said case of Abella, accused depicted the House of Worship of the Iglesia ni Cristo as ‘katayan,’ the basement as killing fields, execution and torture, apparently in retaliation for the private complainant’s false expose.” In sum, the court said the act of reading a Supreme Court decision is not libelous, and even with the comments and remarks of the accused, comments are considered privileged. The court also took cognizance of the fact that the institution the complainants represented is a public figure wherein the public has legitimate interest in its doings. Pulitzer Publishing Company, and also shared in Borjal vs.