Facts:

In a sworn-letter complaint dated July 27, 2000, complainant Alejandro Estrada requested Judge Jose F.
Caobes, Jr., presiding judge of Branch 253, Regional Trail Court of Las Piñas City, for an investigation of
respondent Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter of the said courtm for cohabiting with a man whom she
is not legally married to and having a child within this unlawful cohabitation. The complainant believes
that the respondent should not be allowed to remain employed in the said court as it might appear that
the same tolerates the unlawful behavior not befitting an employee of the judiciary.

In defense, the respondent testified that she was already a widow when she entered the judiciary since
her husband died a year prior. Albeit cohabiting with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of
marriage twenty years ago, she further explained that her then alive husband has been unlawfully living
with another woman. The respondent also claimed that she is a member of the religious sect Johovah’s
Witnesses and Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society where her conjugal arrangement is in conformity
with her religion’s beliefs and that her extra-marital arrangement has been approved by her
congregation.

She further asserted that after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration
of Pledging Faithfulness". The said declaration allowes members of the congregation who have been
abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations after having been duly investigated and
approved by the elders thus making the resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all
over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed.

In a decision dated August 4, 2003, it was held that in resolving claims involving religious freedom (1)
benevolent neutrality or accommodation, whether mandatory or permissive, is the spirit, intent and
framework underlying the religion clauses in our Constitution; and (2) in deciding respondent’s plea of
exemption based on the Free Exercise Clause (from the law with which she is administratively charged), it is
the compelling state interest test, the strictest test, which must be applied.

Notwithstanding the above ruling, the court could not rule on the issue of whether or not Escritor was to
be held administratively liable so the complaint was remanded to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) and ordered the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to intervene in the case so it can: a) examine
the sincerity and centrality of respondent’s claimed religious belief and practice; b) present evidence on
the state’s "compelling interest" to override respondent’s religious belief and practice; and c) show that
the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondent’s religious
freedom.

Issue:

1) Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of gross and
immoral conduct;

2) Whether or not Escritor’s religious belief and practice should warrant her claim of religious
freedom under Section five of the Bill of Rights.
Ruling:

1.) The administrative complaint was dismissed. The court emphasized that our Constitution
adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious
exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, in arguing that respondent should be
held administratively liable as the arrangement she had was "illegal per se because, by
universally recognized standards, it is inherently or by its very nature bad, improper, immoral
and contrary to good conscience, the Solicitor General failed to appreciate that benevolent
neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not
offend compelling state interests.

The Office of the Solicitor General utterly failed to 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. The sincerity of respondent’s religious belief and the
fact that the agreement was an internal arrangement within respondent’s congregation based
on the two documents she presented was enough to defend her claim.

2.) The circumstances under Escritor’s conjugal arrangement is exempted from law under her
right to freedom of religion. Not any interest of the state would suffice to prevail over the right
to religious freedom as this is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred position in
the hierarchy of rights - "the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights", in the words of
Jefferson. This right is sacred for an invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to a
higher sovereignty. The entire constitutional order of limited government is premised upon an
acknowledgment of such higher sovereignty, thus the Filipinos implore the "aid of Almighty God
in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government." As held in Sherbert,
only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests can limit this fundamental right.

In this case, the government’s conduct may appear innocent and nondiscriminatory but in
effect, it is oppressive to the minority. In the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, the question of
which perspective is appropriate would seem easy to answer. Moreover, the text, history,
structure and values implicated in the interpretation of the clauses, all point toward this
perspective. Thus, substantive equality—a reading of the religion clauses which leaves both
politically dominant and the politically weak religious groups equal in their inability to use the
government (law) to assist their own religion or burden others—makes the most sense in the
interpretation of the Bill of Rights, a document designed to protect minorities and individuals
from mobocracy in a democracy. In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists, man
must be allowed to subscribe to the infinite, according to the ponente.