ALEJANDRO

ESTRADA,
petitioner v.
SOLEDAD S.
ESCRITOR,
respondent
A.M. No. P-02-1651  
   August 4, 2003
Facts:
Escritor is a court
interpreter since
1999 in the RTC of
Las Pinas City. She
has been living
with Quilapio, a man
who is not her
husband, for more
than twenty five
years and had a son
with him as well.
Respondentʼs
husband died a year
before she entered
into the judiciary
while Quilapio is still
legally married to
another woman.
Complainant Estrada
requested the Judge
of said RTC to
investigate
respondent.
According
to complainant,
respondent should
not be allowed to
remain employed
therein for it will
appear as if the court
allows such act.
Respondent claims
that their conjugal
arrangement is
permitted by her
religion—the
Jehovahʼs Witnesses
and the Watch Tower
and the Bible Trace
Society. They
allegedly have a
‘Declaration of
Pledging
Faithfulnessʼ under
the approval of their
congregation. Such a
declaration is
effective when legal
impediments render
it impossible for a
couple to legalize
their union.
Issue:
Whether or Not the
State could penalize
respondent for such
conjugal
arrangement.
Held:
No. The State could
not penalize
respondent for she is
exercising her right to
freedom of religion.
The free exercise of
religion is specifically
articulated as one of
the fundamental
rights in our
Constitution. As
Jefferson put it, it is
the most inalienable
and sacred of human
rights. The Stateʼs
interest in enforcing
its prohibition cannot
be merely abstract or
symbolic in order to
be sufficiently
compelling to
outweigh a free
exercise claim. In the
case at bar, the State
has not evinced any
concrete interest in
enforcing the
concubinage or
bigamy charges
against respondent
or her partner. Thus
the Stateʼs interest
only amounts to the
symbolic
preservation of an
unenforced
prohibition. Furtherm
ore, a distinction
between public and
secular morality and
religious morality
should be kept in
mind. The jurisdiction
of the Court extends
only to public and
secular morality.
The Court further
states that our
Constitution adheres
the benevolent
neutrality approach
that gives room for
accommodation of
religious exercises as
required by the Free
Exercise Clause. This
benevolent neutrality
could allow for
accommodation of
morality based on
religion, provided it
does not offend
compelling state
interests. Assuming
arguendo that the
OSG has proved a
compelling state
interest, it has to
further demonstrate
that the state has
used the least
intrusive means
possible so that the
free exercise is not
infringed any more
than necessary to
achieve the
legitimate goal of the
state. Thus the
conjugal
arrangement cannot
be penalized for it
constitutes an
exemption to the law
based on her right to
freedom of religion.

Oposa vs.
Factoran
July 31, 2013
Oposa vs. Factoran
GR No. 1010183, July
30, 1993

FACTS:

The principal
petitioners are all
minors duly
represented and
joined by their
respective parents.

Impleaded as an
additional plaintiff is
the Philippine
Ecological Network,
Inc. (PENI), a
domestic, non-stock
and non-profit
corporation
organized for the
purpose of, inter alia,
engaging in
concerted action
geared for the
protection of our
environment and
natural resources.

The original
defendant was the
Honorable Fulgencio
S. Factoran, Jr., then
Secretary of the
Department of
Environment and
Natural Resources
(DENR).

The complaint was

instituted as a
taxpayers' class suit
and alleges that the
plaintiffs "are all
citizens of the
Republic of the
Philippines,
taxpayers, and
entitled to the full
benefit, use and
enjoyment of the
natural resource
treasure that is the
country's virgin
tropical forests."

This instant petition

was filed to seek for
the cancelation of all
existing timber
license agreements
(TLAs) in the country
and to cease and
desist from receiving,
accepting,
processing, renewing
or approving new
timber license
agreements. 

Minor petitioners
contend that
continued granting of
timber license
constitutes a
misappropriation or
impairment of the
natural resource
property and violates
their constitutional
right to a balanced
and healthful ecology
(Art. II, Sec. 16, 1987
Constitution) and the
protection by the
State in its capacity
as parens patriae.

Petitioners likewise
rely on the
respondent's
correlative obligation
per Section 4 of E.O.
No. 192, to safeguard
the people's right to
a healthful
environment. Oposa
vs. Factoran

ISSUES:
 g. Whether or not
the petitioners
have locus
standi.
h. Whether or not
the petitioners
failed to allege in
their complaint a
specific legal
right violated by
the respondent
Secretary for
which any relief
is provided by
law. Oposa vs.
Factoran
HELD:

1. The Court finds no

difficulty in ruling that
they can file a class
suit because they
represent their
generation as well as
generations yet
unborn.

Their personality to
sue in behalf of the
succeeding
generations can only
be based on the
concept of
intergenerational
responsibility insofar
as the right to a
balanced and
healthful ecology is
concerned. Oposa
vs. Factoran
Such a right, as
hereinafter
expounded,
considers the
"rhythm and harmony
of nature."

Nature means the

created world in its
entirety. Oposa vs.
Factoran

Such rhythm and

harmony
indispensably
include, inter alia, the
judicious disposition,
utilization,
management,
renewal and
conservation of the
country's forest,
mineral, land, waters,
fisheries, wildlife, off-
shore areas and
other natural
resources to the end
that their exploration,
development and
utilization be
equitably accessible
to the present as well
as future
generations.

Every generation has

a responsibility to the
next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony
for the full enjoyment
of a balanced and
healthful ecology.
Oposa vs. Factoran

Read: People vs. Vera

Put a little differently,

the minors' assertion
of their right to a
sound environment
constitutes, at the
same time, the
performance of their
obligation to ensure
the protection of that
right for the
generations to come.

2. The Court does

not agree with the
trial court's
conclusions that the
plaintiffs failed to
allege with sufficient
definiteness a
specific legal right
involved or a specific
legal wrong
committed, and that
the complaint is
replete with vague
assumptions and
conclusions based on
unverified data.

The complaint
focuses on one
specific fundamental
legal right — the right
to a balanced and
healthful ecology
which, for the first
time in our nation's
constitutional history,
is solemnly
incorporated in the
fundamental law
(Section 16, Article II
of the 1987
Constitution). Oposa
vs. Factoran
While the right to a
balanced and
healthful ecology is
to be found under the
Declaration of
Principles and State
Policies and not
under the Bill of
Rights, it does not
follow that it is less
important than any of
the civil and political
rights enumerated in
the latter.

Such a right belongs

to a different
category of rights
altogether for it
concerns nothing
less than self-
preservation and
self-perpetuation —
aptly and fittingly
stressed by the
petitioners — the
advancement of
which may even be
said to predate all
governments and
constitutions.

The right to a
balanced and
healthful ecology
carries with it the
correlative duty to
refrain from impairing
the environment.
Oposa vs. Factoran

Read: Gonzales vs.

Narvasa

EO 192 and Admin

Code of 1987 define
the powers and
functions of DENR,
under whose
authority and office
the complaint falls.

The petitionersʼ right

to a balanced and
healthful ecology is
as clear as DENRʼs
duty to protect and
advance the said
right. Oposa vs.
Factoran

The petitionersʼ
personality to sue in
behalf of their own as
well as the future
generationsʼ behalf
can only be based on
the concept of
intergenerational
esponsibility insofar
as the said right is
concerned. 

Aglipay v. Ruiz, GR
No. L-45459,
March 13, 1937
Facts:
Petitioner Aglipay, the
head of Phil.
Independent Church,
filed a writ of
prohibition against
respondent Ruiz, the
Director of Post,
enjoining the latter
from issuing and
selling postage
stamps
commemorative of
the 33rd Intl
Eucharistic Congress
organized by the
Roman Catholic. The
petitioner invokes
that such issuance
and selling, as
authorized by Act
4052 by the Phil.
Legislature,
contemplates
religious purpose –
for the benefit of a
particular sect or
church. Hence, this
petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the
issuing and selling of
commemorative
stamps is
constitutional?
Held/Reason:
The Court said YES,
the issuing and
selling of
commemorative
stamps by the
respondent does not
contemplate any
favor upon a
particular sect or
church, but the
purpose was only ‘to
advertise the
Philippines and
attract more touristʼ
and the government
just took advantage
of an event
considered of
international
importance, thus, not
violating the
Constitution on its
provision on the
separation of the
Church and State.
Moreover, the Court
stressed that
‘Religious freedom,
as a constitutional
mandate is not
inhibition of profound
reverence for religion
and is not denial of
its influence in
human affairsʼ.
Emphasizing that,
‘when the Filipino
people ‘implored the
aid of Divine
Providenceʼ, they
thereby manifested
reliance upon Him
who guides the
destinies of men
and nations. The
elevating influence
of religion in human
society is
recognized here as
elsewhere. In fact,
certain general
concessions are
indiscriminately
accorded to
religious sects and
denominations