ESTRADA VS ESCRITOR A.M. No.

P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

FACTS:

Complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of
rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, is living with a man not her husband. They
allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. Estrada is not personally related either to Escritor
or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the charge against Escritor as he believes that she is committing an
immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed
therein as it might appear that the court condones her act.

Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her
husband having died in 1998. She admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without
the benefit of marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect
known as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal
arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she
executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness," insofar as the congregation is
concerned, there is nothing immoral about the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and
they remain members in good standing in the congregation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of "gross and immoral
conduct."

HELD:

Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the
same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional
limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow
for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests.
It still remains to be seen if respondent is entitled to such doctrine as the state has not been afforded
the chance has demonstrate the compelling state interest of prohibiting the act of respondent, thus the
case is remanded to the RTC.

Benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it prohibits such exercise
given a compelling state interest. It is the respondent’s stance that the respondent’s conjugal
arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection.
Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, the
Court’s action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. The Court
cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondent’s claim of religious freedom, but must instead
apply the “compelling state interest” test. The government must be heard on the issue as it has not
been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of demonstrating the state’s compelling interest
which can override respondent’s religious belief and practice.