Among
the various opinions filed in Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, the separate opinion of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza seems to me to be the most plausible. Because of that, I am
posting a summary of his opinion apart from the rest of the opinions that I
previously posted jointly.
Essentially,
the Mendoza thesis says that “[c]ensorship may be allowed only in a
narrow class of cases involving pornography, excessive violence, and danger to
national security. Even in these cases, only courts can prohibit the showing of
a film or the broadcast of a program. In all other cases, the only remedy
against speech which creates a clear and present danger to public interests is
through subsequent punishment. Considering the potentiality for harm which
motion pictures and TV programs may have especially on the young, all materials
may validly be required to be submitted for review before they may be shown or
broadcast. However, the final determination of the character of the materials
cannot be left to an administrative agency. That judicial review of
administrative action is available does not obviate the constitutional
objection to censorship.”