Name: Clea Rose Damasco , JD 1-A

Assignment 1

 What is a Case Digest?

 A case digest is a shortened version of a case. It is a written summary of the case. A
case sometimes involves several issues. Digesting the same would help the student in
separating one issue from another and understanding how the Court resolved the
issues in the case.
 What are the essential parts of a case digest. Discuss each part briefly.
 A case digest has a few essential parts. The first one is the Facts of the case; it
discusses the history, background and nature of the case. It shows the nature of the
court litigation and proceedings as well as introduction of who are the plaintiff and
the defendants in courts otherwise known as parties as well. The second one is the
Issue of the case. This talks about the question of law raised by the litigation and the
proceedings and the very reason why the case was even brought to court. Thirdly is
the Ratio Decidendi or the reasoning behind the ruling of the case. This discusses
why the court had decided upon its ruling and or decision based on a law or principle
of law that is to be applied in the judgement. And lastly, the ruling or decision of the
courts of the case. This contains the court’s answer towards the issue presented by the
case. This could be final or appealable judgements given by the courts to the parties
in question.
 Make a case digest of your favourite landmark case.

G.R. No. 119673 July 26, 1996

IGLESIA NI CRISTO, (INC.), petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BOARD OF REVIEW FOR MOVING
PICTURES AND TELEVISION and HONORABLE HENRIETTA S. MENDOZA,
respondents.

PONENTE: Puno, J
FACTS:
 The religious group Iglesia ni Cristo has filed a case against the MTRCB for tagging
the episodes of its TV program Series Nos. 116, 119, 121 and 128 sometime in the
months of September, October and November 1992 and tagging them as "X" or not
for public viewing on the ground that they "offend and constitute an attack against
other religions which is expressly prohibited by law."
 The respondent had answered the petition stating that it was clearly a violation of the
Article 2, section 6 of the constitution or the freedom of religion and exercise thereof.
 The RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner group and ordered the board to issue the
necessary permit for the broadcast of the petitioner’s program. However, this was
answered by the Board through a appeal passed to the CA.
 The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the
TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with
grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three
series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute an attack
against another religion. It ruled in favour of the respondent Board.
 Because of the decision, the petitioner was dissatisfied and appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Issues:
 Does the respondent board have the power to review the petitioner’s programs?
 If the board gravely abused its discretion when it prohibited the airing of the
program?
Ruling:

[The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the CA insofar as the CA sustained the action of
the respondent Board’s X-rating petitioner’s TV Program Series Nos. 115, 119, and
121. It also voted 10-4 to AFFIRM the CA insofar as the CA it sustained the
jurisdiction of the respondent MTRCB to review petitioner’s TV program entitled
“Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.”]
Ratio Decidendi / Reasoning:
 The application of the free exercise of religion clause can be understood that
although there is free exercise of therefor, the State has still the capacity to regulate
when it will bring about clear and present danger in which the State has the
obligation to protect its people against.
 However, there was a failure of the respondent to prove the dangers against the state.
 It ruled that respondent board cannot squelch the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni
Cristo simply because it attacks other religions, even if said religion happens to be
the most numerous church in our country. In a State where there ought to be no
difference between the appearance and the reality of freedom of religion, the
remedy against bad theology is better theology