Estrada vs.

Escritor 2

I. A recap of the past proceedings
II. A recap of the Supreme Courts ruling
a. Applied Benevolent Neutrality
b. Applied Compelling State Interest
i. Has Escritor really been burdened? Is she sincere?
ii. Degree of injury and degree of States interest
iii. Any other means of doing it?
III. Law of the Case
a. The Supreme Court has already chosen to use the benevolent neutrality approach. That
is already the law of the case. The three things mentioned above are the only concerns
of the new proceeding.
IV. Summary of the Old World Antecedents
V. Religion Clauses in the US Context (please refer to the first digest)
VI. Strict Separation and Strict Neutrality (please refer to the first digest)
VII. Benevolent Neutrality or Accommodation (please refer to the first digest)
VIII. Legislative Acts and Free Exercise Clause
a. In creating laws of general applicability, several religions might be offended
IX. Jurisprudence and Free Exercise Clause
a. Whenever a law that infringes the free exercise clause has been enacted, the duty of the
court is to ascertain if the purpose behind such law enactment is compelling. If so, the
court has to carve out an exemption.
b. The US court is firm on applying the compelling state interest (Yoder, Sherbert). Even if
the law over which the individual is asking to be exempted from is criminal, the court
will still allow exemption for compelling reasons.
c. Smith was the only case which ruled based on the belief-action test. It was highly
criticized as it practically erased the free exercise clause.
i. Smith argues that the precedents were a hybrid of different constitutional right
hence; exemptions to laws of general applicability were granted.
d. Purpose of Free Exercise:
i. Protect minority from majority or laws in favour of the majority
ii. Reduce States pervasiveness
iii. Prohibits State interference on individuals strong religious convictions.
X. Different kinds of accommodation
a. Mandatory Accommodation- those provided for in the Constitution. There is no other
option but to accommodate it.
b. Permissive Accommodation- accommodation by a legislative grant
c. Prohibited Accommodation- no accommodation at all. There is no compelling interest to
grant exemption.
d. In the Philippines, several permissive accommodations are embodied in the constitution
itself, making them mandatory accommodations.
i. There is this argument coming from Carpio that only Permissible
Accommodation should be allowed. He argues that the constitutional provisions
relating to freedom of religion are not sources of rights. Only if the Congress
would allow it (through legislation) would there be a right to get exempted.
Hence, a person claiming exemption must ask the legislature and not the
Judiciary.
ii. In this line of thought, it practically abolishes the need for tests as the court
would not be able to interpret the religious clauses to grant exemptions. (I think
this is somehow related to non-self executing provisions.)
iii. Counterarguments against Carpios premise:
1. In the Philippines, the intent of the framers to use the benevolent
neutrality approach is so manifested and apparent on the Constitution
itself. We have greater leeway.
2. The purpose of the entire accommodation thing is to remove the
burdensome effect. The legislative will be the ones to create a law. It
is a bit dangerous to leave the power to grant exemptions to them as
well. On its face, a law may be neutral. The court should have the power
to check on its neutrality and to grant exemption, (not to declare as
unconstitutional) after doing so.
3. This is a recourse of the minority group. Without mandatory
accommodations, we are removing the protection granted to these
minority groups from possible legislations that favour the majority just
because the Congress is predominantly, Catholic (as the case may be)
4. The Religion Clauses are couched on absolute terms, unqualified by the
words due process, unreasonableness or lawful order
XI. Tests applicable in determining the extent of Free Exercise Clause
a. Clear and Present Danger/Immediate and Grave Danger- applicable to religious speech
cases
b. Compelling State Interest- applicable to cases in which the acts prohibited by law are
absolutely contrary to the purpose of such law.
i. Burden to the individual
ii. Purpose behind the law
iii. Compelling reason to carve out exemption

Current Proceedings
Preliminary conditions required by compelling state-test: In this case, Law or govt practice inhibits the
free exercise of respondents religious belief and there being no doubt as to the sincerity and certainty
of her faith to claim exemption

A look at evidence by OSG: Fails to demonstrate gravest abuse, endangering paramount interest nor
did it exert effort to show that means used to achieve state objective was least intrusive.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of disgraceful and
immoral conduct.

1. Existence of burden on the respondents end
a. There is a burden. She practically would have to choose between her employment and
religion.
b. Is she sincere on exercising her religion?
i. Yes. She even had executed Declaration of Pledge of Faithfulness before even
assuming her job.
2. Evidence given by the Solicitor General as far as compelling reason is concerned
a. Marriage and Family life as a basic social institution that the State must protect.
Declaration should not be recognized or given effect utterly destructive of the avowed
institutions of marriage
i. Counterargument: religious freedom is more sacred when it comes to hierarchy
of rights. GOvt must show how and to what extent objectives would be
undermined if exemptions are granted. The degree of damage that the State
will suffer if the respondent would be exempted has not been alleged by the
Solicitor General
b. Condonation of an unlawful cohabitation
i. Sol Gen: State law on marriage, which are moral, should take precedence over
religious beliefs and practices of any church on marriage.
ii. Court: Morality contemplated is public and secular not religious. Although
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of religious morality. But
jurisdiction of court should be understood only in secular realm.
c. Adulterous relationship are constantly frowned upon by the society and is against public
policy
i. Sol Gen: Escritors marriage arrangement is illegal per se because, by universally
recognized standards, it is inherently or by its nature bad, improper and
immoral, and contrary to good conscience.
ii. Counterargument-SolGen failed to appreciate benevolent neutrality that allows
for accommodation provided it does not offend compelling state interests. The
very purpose of granting accommodation is to protect the minority from the
majority who constantly frowns for actions of the minority
3. The purpose behind the applicable law is to preserve the integrity of the Judiciary. Is it the least
intrusive way?
a. No. The Solicitor General did not even give evidence as to lack of other means.

Decision:
In this particular case, Escritor cannot be penalized as she was able to make a case for exemption from
the law based on her freedom of religion. The administrative complaint is DISMISSED.

Dissent: Carpio : US SC has abandoned Sherberts compelling state interest test for more than 15 years.
Sherbert case used only on unemployment cases.
Free Exercise Clause does not require grant of exemptions from generally applicable laws to those
whose religious practice are in conflict with the law.

Protection that First amendment provides to legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion does not
extend to conduct that the state has proscribed.

Individuals religious belief does not excuse him from compliance with otherwise valid laws prohibiting
conduct that State is free to regulate.