Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Alejandro Estrada vs Soledad S.

Escritor
A.M. No. P-02-1651/June 22, 2006
Puno, J.

Facts:
Soledad Escritor works as a court interpreter in the RTC of Las Pias City. Alejandro
Estrada filed a letter-complaint for immorality (violation of Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, Sec.
46(b)(5) of the Revised Administrative Code) against Escritor, alleging that she is living with a
man other than her husband, and they had an eighteen to twenty-year old son. Escritor testified
that she was already a widow by the time she entered the judiciary in 1999. On the other hand, her
live-in partner, Quilapio, is still legally married to his wife. Being a member of the religious sect
known as Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, Escritor asserts that
her conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs and it has the approval of
their congregation. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a
Declaration Pledging Faithfulness. Such declaration is effective when legal impediments render it
impossible for the couple to legalize their marriage. The declaration requires the approval of the
elders of the Jehovahs Witnesses congregation and is binding within the congregation all over the
world, except in countries where divorce is allowed. Insofar as the congregation is concerned,
there is nothing immoral in Escritors living arrangement.

Estrada is neither related to Escritor or Quilapio. He is also not a resident of Las Pias City
but of Bacoor, Cavite. However, the complainant alleged that Escritor should not be allowed to
remain employed in the judiciary for it will manifest that as if the honorable court allowed such
act.

Issue:
Whether or not the State should penalize Soledad Escritor for her conjugal arrangement.

Held:
No. The State could not penalize Escritor for she is exercising her right to freedom of
religion. The free exercise of religion is one of the fundamental rights articulated in our
Constitution. Moreover, through the application of Compelling State Interest Test, is was
determined that Escritor cannot be penalized for her conjugal arrangement. On the sincerity of her
religious belief and its centrality in her faith, the OSG found that her belief and practice are beyond
serious doubt.

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, provided
that it does not offend compelling state interest.

Neither Estrada or Escritor has filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the August 2003
decision. Thus, the 2003 decision has attained finality and established as the law of the case.

Hence, Escritors conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as her case is a case for
exemption from the law based on her constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Note:
Benevolent Neutrality man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai