LEGAL RESEARCH

Case Digest

MATEO, JERIC S.
TIMOSA, EDWIN BRIX
ANGULUAN, ADRIAN

BSLM 2A
A.M. No. P-02-165, June 22, 2006,

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR

FACTS:
A year after her husband died, respondent Escritor entered in judiciary as a
court interpreter in RTC. Escritor admitted that she started living with Luciano
Quilapao Jr. whom is validly married with other woman, without the benefit of
marriage more than 20 years ago when her husband was still alive but living with
other woman.
She also admitted that they have son. Petitioner filed a complaint before the
RTC to investigate the respondent believing that Escritor is committing immoral
act and smearing the image of the court, therefore, should not be allowed to
remain employed. Respondent claims the conjugal arrangement between her and
Quilapao is in conformity with their religious beliefs and approval of her
congregation. In fact, she executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness, a
practice of the said congregation allowing its members who have been
abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Escritor can be penalized by the state for the said conjugal
arrangement.

RULING:
No, Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made for
exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion.
The court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms,
including religious freedom, may be enjoyed.

Free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental

right in the 1987 constitution. It Is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred
position in the hierarchy of rights, which is the most inalienable and sacred of
human rights. Hence, our constitution itself upholds the right to religious freedom
as sacred, the state cannot contend that the state's interest is more important
enough than it. In the case at bar, the state has not evinced any concrete interest
in enforcing concubinage or bigamy charges against the respondents and her
partner. The state’s asserted amounts only to the symbolic preservation of an
unenforced prohibition. More so, the constitution adheres to the benevolent
neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious belief and
exercise as required by the free exercise clause.