Estrada vs. Escritor A.M.

P-02-1651 August 4, 2003 Facts: In a sworn letter-complaint, Alejandro Estrada, complainant, wrote to Judge Caoibes Jr. requesting for an in estigation of rumors t!at respondent "oledad Escritor, court interpreter of #as $i%as, is li ing wit! a man not !er !usband. Judge Caoibes referred t!e letter to Escritor, w!o stated t!at &t!ere is no trut! as to t!e eracit' of t!e allegation( and c!allenged Estrada, &to appear in t!e open and pro e !is allegation in t!e proper court(. Judge Caoibes set a preliminar' conference and Escritor mo e for in!ibition to a oid bias and suspicion in !earing !er case. In t!e conference, Estrada confirmed t!at !e filed a letter-complaint for &disgraceful and immoral conduct( under t!e )e ised Administrati e Code against Escritor for t!at !is frequent isit in t!e *all of Justice in #as $i%as learned Escritor is co!abiting wit! anot!er man not !is !usband. Escritor testified t!at w!en s!e entered judiciar' in +,,,, s!e was alread' a widow since +,,-. "!e admitted t!at s!e.s been li ing wit! #uciano /uilapo Jr. wit!out t!e benefit of marriage for 01 'ears and t!at t!e' !a e a son. Escritor asserted t!at as a member of t!e religious sect 2nown as Je!o a!.s 3itnesses, and !a ing e4ecuted a &5eclaration of $ledging Fait!fulness( 6w!ic! allows members of t!e congregation w!o !a e been abandoned b' t!eir spouses to enter into marital relations7 jointl' wit! /uilapo after ten 'ears of li ing toget!er, !er conjugal arrangement is in conformit' wit! !er religious beliefs and !as t!e appro al of t!e congregation, t!erefore not constituting disgraceful and immoral conduct. Issue: 3!et!er or not Escritor is administrati el' liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct. )uling: Escritor cannot be penali8ed. 9!e Constitution ad!eres to t!e bene olent neutralit' approac! t!at gi es room for accommodation of religious e4ercises as required b' t!e Free E4ercise Clause, pro ided t!at it does not offend compelling state interests. 9!e :"; must t!en demonstrate t!at t!e state !as used t!e least intrusi e means possible so t!at t!e free e4ercise clause is not infringed an' more t!an necessar' to ac!ie e t!e legitimate goal of t!e state. In t!is case, wit! no iota of e idence offered, t!e records are bereft of e en a feeble attempt to s!ow t!at t!e state adopted t!e least intrusi e means. 3it! t!e "olicitor ;eneral utterl' failing to pro e t!is element of t!e test, and under t!ese distinct circumstances, Escritor cannot be penali8ed. 9!e Constitution itself mandates t!e Court to ma2e e4emptions in cases in ol ing criminal laws of general application, and under t!ese distinct circumstances, suc! conjugal arrangement cannot be penali8ed for t!ere is a case for e4emption from t!e law based on t!e fundamental rig!t to freedom of religion. In t!e area of religious e4ercise as a preferred freedom, man stands accountable to an aut!orit' !ig!er t!an t!e state.