RELIGION VS.

MORALITY

Jamaica A. Molaga
Renz Phylis G. Factuar
 FACTS of the Case

• July 27, 2000, complainant Alejandro Estrada requested for an investigation of

respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, for living with a man not
her husband, and having borne a child within this live-in arrangement.

• Estrada believes that Escritor 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.

• Consequently, respondent was charged with committing "disgraceful and immoral

conduct".
FACTS of the Case

• Escritor testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow
• She 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
• She also admitted that she and Quilapio have a son.
• But as a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract
Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs and has
the approval of her congregation.
 FACTS of the Case

• July 28, 1991, after ten years of living together, she executed on, a "Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness”
- allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into
marital relations and which requires the approval of the elders of the congregation.
- requires that at the time the declarations are executed, the couple cannot secure the civil
authorities’ approval of the marital relationship because of legal impediments

- once all legal impediments for the couple are lifted, the validity of the declarations ceases,
and the couple should legalize their union

• Said declaration was completely executed by Escritor and Quilapio in Atimonan,

Quezon and was signed by three witnesses and recorded in Watch Tower Central
Office.
FACTS of the Case

• In its Memorandum-In-Intervention, the OSG contends that the State has a

compelling interest to override respondent’s claimed religious belief and practice,
in order to protect marriage and the family as basic social institutions.

• The Solicitor General also argued against respondent’s religious freedom on the
basis of morality.
ISSUE of the Case

Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the

administrative charge of "disgraceful and immoral conduct“ due to
such conjugal arrangement
RULING

The instant administrative complaint is DISMISSED.

 RATIO DECIDENDI

NON-ESTABLISHMENT and FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

Art. III, Sec 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “ No law shall
be made respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed.
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights

to promote freedom of individual religious beliefs and practices

RATIO DECIDENDI

BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY
recognizes that religion plays an important role in the public life
respects the religious nature of the people and accommodate the
public service to their spiritual needs

accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the

government’s favored form of religion but to allow individuals or
group to exercise their own religion without hindrance
RATIO DECIDENDI
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST
the government's interest shall be balanced against the individual's constitutional
right to be free of law
A three-step process
which aims to answer
Has the statute or government action created a burden on
the free exercise of religion?
Is there a sufficient compelling state interest to justify the
infringement of religious liberty?
Has the State in achieving its legitimate purposes used the
last intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not
infringed in any more than necessary to achieve the
legitimate goal of the state?
 RATIO DECIDENDI

Our Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Non-Establishment and Free
Exercise Clause.

The Solicitor General also failed to:

• appreciate that benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on
religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests;
• 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; and
• show how and to what extent those objectives will be undermined if exemptions are
granted.
RATIO DECIDENDI

Respondent Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out
a case 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.
Man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state
interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the
very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom.

In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists, man must be allowed to
subscribe to the Infinite.
THANK YOU
