CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 SUN | 1-5:00PM

ATTY. CLARICE JOY SAN JOSE

TOPIC: Fundamental Principles and State Policies

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA V. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR
A.M. No. P-02-1651
June 22, 2006
PONENTE: PUNO, J. DIGESTED BY:
FACTS:
- The case involves Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, who is accused of
living with a man who is not her husband and having a child with him.
- Respondent admitted that she started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.
without the benefit of marriage more than twenty years ago when her
husband was still alive but living with another woman.
- The complainant, Alejandro Estrada, argues that Escritor's actions are
immoral and tarnish the image of the court where she is employed.
- Respondent claims that her conjugal arrangement is in accordance with her
religious beliefs as a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
- Respondent argues that their congregation approves of their arrangement
and that they have executed a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" to
make their union moral and binding within the congregation.

Previous Ruling and Remand

- The Court determined that the compelling state interest test, the strictest
test, should be applied in cases involving claims of religious freedom
- However, the court could not definitively rule on Escritor's case at that time
and remanded it to the Office of the Solicitor General to intervene and
present evidence of the state's compelling interest to override Escritor's
religious belief and practice.
ISSUE/S:
- Whether respondent’s conjugal arrangement constitutes disgraceful and
immoral conduct that should result in her being penalized of administrative
charge.
- Whether the evidence presented by the state proves its more compelling
interest to the case.
RULING:
- The Court rules in favor of respondent, dismissing the administrative
complaint against her, asserting that the arrangement does not constitute
disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Civil Service Law and upholds
the interpreter's right to religious freedom.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Section 5 of Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution: on religious freedom

- The free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the

fundamental rights in our Constitution.
- Hence, it is not enough to contend that the state’s interest is important,
because our Constitution itself holds the right to religious freedom sacred.
The State must articulate in specific terms the state interest involved in
 preventing the exemption, which must be compelling, for only the gravest
abuses, endangering paramount interests can limit the fundamental right to
religious freedom.
- There is a need to emphasize the importance of religious freedom and the
need to balance the State's interests with an individual's right to religious
freedom.
- The Court applies the compelling state interest test to determine if the state
has a more compelling interest to override Escritor's religious belief and
practice.
- 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. Consequently, the Court finds that the
government has failed to demonstrate a compelling secular objective and
the least restrictive means in preventing the exemption, and therefore,
Escritor's right to religious freedom prevails. The Court recognizes that state
interests must be upheld in order that freedoms - including religious
freedom - may be enjoyed.

2) The Court explains that while the U.S. Court has adopted a strict neutrality
or separation approach, the Philippine Constitution and jurisprudence have
embraced a benevolent neutrality or accommodation approach. In other
words, benevolent neutrality or accommodation is the underlying principle of
the religion clauses in the Philippine Constitution.

- Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Court emphasizes that the Philippine
Constitution has made significant changes which incorporates mandatory
accommodations for interpreting the religion clauses, as seen in provisions
on tax exemption of church property, salary of religious officers in
government institutions, and optional religious instruction.
- The Court upholds the Philippine approach of mandatory and permissive
accommodations for religion.
- The Court emphasizes that its decision is specific to this case and these
circumstances and does not set a precedent for other court employees or
individuals in the civil service.

The Compelling State Interest Test:

1) "[H]as the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of religion?"
The courts often look into the sincerity of the religious belief, but without inquiring into the
truth of the belief because the Free Exercise Clause prohibits inquiring about its truth as held
in Ballard and Cantwell. The sincerity of the claimant’s belief is ascertained to avoid the mere
claim of religious beliefs to escape a mandatory regulation.
2) The court asks: "[I]s there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty?" In this step, the government has to establish that its purposes are legitimate
for the state and that they are compelling. Government must do more than assert the
objectives at risk if exemption is given; it must precisely show how and to what extent those
objectives will be undermined if exemptions are granted.
3) The court asks: "[H]as the state in achieving its legitimate purposes 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 analysis requires the state to show that the means in
which it is achieving its legitimate state objective is the least intrusive means, i.e., it has
chosen a way to achieve its legitimate state end that imposes as little as possible on religious
liberties