Estrada vs. Escritor, AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

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. Respondent’s 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

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society.
They allegedly have a ‘Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness’ 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 State’s 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 State’s interest only amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced
prohibition. Furthermore, 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.
Estrada vs Escritor (August 4, 2003)
Estrada vs. Escritor
AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
FACTS:
Soledad Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas City. Alejandro Estrada,
the complainant, wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, presiding judge of Branch 253, RTC of Las Pinas
City, requesting for an investigation of rumors that Escritor has been living with Luciano Quilapio
Jr., a man not her husband, and had eventually begotten a son. Escritor’s husband, who had lived
with another woman, died a year before she entered into the judiciary. On the other hand, Quilapio is
still legally married to another woman. Estrada is not related to either Escritor or Quilapio and is not
a resident of Las Pinas but of Bacoor, Cavite. According to the complainant, respondent should not
be allowed to remain employed in the judiciary for it will appear as if the court allows such act.
Escritor is a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower
and Bible Tract Society where her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio is in conformity with their
religious beliefs. After ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a “Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness” which was approved by the congregation. Such declaration is effective when
legal impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union. Gregorio, Salazar, a
member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1985 and has been a presiding minister since 1991,
testified and explained the import of and procedures for executing the declaration which was
completely executed by Escritor and Quilapio’s in Atimonan, Quezon and was signed by three
witnesses and recorded in Watch Tower Central Office.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of “gross and immoral
conduct” and be penalized by the State for such conjugal arrangement.
HELD:
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 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.
The state’s interest is the preservation of the integrity of the judiciary by maintaining among its ranks
a high standard of morality and decency. “There is nothing in the OCA’s (Office of the Court
Administrator) memorandum to the Court that demonstrates how this interest is so compelling that it
should override respondent’s plea of religious freedom. Indeed, it is inappropriate for the
complainant, a private person, to present evidence on the compelling interest of the state. The burden
of evidence should be discharged by the proper agency of the government which is the Office of the
Solicitor General”.
In order to properly settle the case at bar, it is essential that the government be given an opportunity
to demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the respondent’s position
that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it is within the scope of free exercise
protection. The Court could not prohibit and punish her conduct where the Free Exercise Clause
protects it, since this would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom.
Furthermore, the court cannot simply take a passing look at respondent’s claim of religious freedom
but must also apply the “compelling state interest” test.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the case is REMANDED to the Office of the Court Administrator. The
Solicitor General is ordered to intervene in the case where it will be given the opportunity (a) to
examine the sincerity and centrality of respondent's claimed religious belief and practice; (b) to
present evidence on the state's "compelling interest" to override respondent's religious belief and
practice; and (c) to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive
to respondent's religious freedom. The rehearing should be concluded thirty (30) days from the
Office of the Court Administrator's receipt of this Decision.

Estrada vs. Escritor, AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada vs. Escritor, AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada vs. Escritor, AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALEJANDRO

ESTRADA, petitioner v. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, respondent

Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent.

Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion—the

Whether or Not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement.

The Court further states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.