ESTRADA v.

ESCRITOR June 22, 2006 RESOLUTION

Puno, J

NOTE: This resolution is from the remand of the Office of the Court Administrator of the 2003 Estrada v. Escritor case. Past Proceedings: A Brief Summary of the 2003 Case On July of 2000, Alejandro Estrada, in a sworn-letter complaint, requested Judge Caoibes Jr of RTC-Las Pinas, of an investigation of Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, for living with a man not her husband, and having borne a child within this live-in arrangement. Estrada believes that this is an immoral act which tarnishes the image of the court. Indeed, Escritor was charged with committing disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Revised Administrative Code. Escritor does not deny such live-in arrangements but avers that as a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, such conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs and is approved by their congregation. She presents a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness, a document honored by the Jehovahs Witnesses, making a resulting union between members who have been abandoned by their spouses, moral and binding within the congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. As such, insofar as the congregation is concerned, there is nothing immoral about the arrangement. The Ruling in the 2003 Case: Brief Summary The court held that in resolving claims involving religious freedom: (1) BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY or accommodation, mandatory or permissive, is the spirit, intent, and framework underlying the religion clauses (2) In deciding a plea of exemption based on the Free Exercise Clause, COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST must be applied In the 2003 case, the court could not rule on whether Escritor should be administratively liable since the State was given the opportunity to adduce evidence that it has a more compelling interest to defeat the claim of the respondent to religious freedom. The 2003 case was remanded to the OCA and for the OSG to intervene Issue to be Resolved: (1) Issue on what approach this court should take in construing religion clauses = DECIDED in 2003 (2) Whether evidence adduced by the State proves a more compelling state interest = ISSUE AT BAR Law of the Case: The Highlights of the 2003 Decision I. Old World Antecedents A. Salient features in the review of religious history 1. History of church-state relationship was characterized by persecution, oppression, hatred, bloodshed, war, all in the name of God and Peace 2. Unscrupulous use of religion by secular powers to promote secular purposes and policies, willingly accepted by the vanguards of religion in exchange for benefits B. Hence, the separation of church and state C. First amendment did not take away or abridge any power of the national government, its intent was to make express the absence of power D. Two parts: (1) Establishment clause, (2) Free Exercise clause E. Function of the Religion Clauses: 1. Promote freedom of individual religious beliefs and practices 2. Prohibits government from inhibiting religious beliefs 3. A denial of power to the government Religion Clauses in the US Context A. Two different, event opposing, strains of jurisprudence on religion clauses: 1. Standard of Separation a. Strict Separation Establishment clause was meant to protect the state from the church, and the states hostility towards religion allows no interaction between the 2 Strict separationists are caught in an awkward position of claiming a constitutional principle that has never existed and is never likely to b. Strict Neutrality or Separation or Government Neutrality See Everson v. Board of Education The wall of separation does not require the state to be adversarial Rather, the state should be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers Religion may not be used as classification for governmental action c. Critiques on the Separationist Approach

II.

2. Standard of Benevolent Neutrality or Accommodation

a.

In real life, church and state cannot be totally separate

B.

Difference with the Standard of Separation In Separatist: the wall of separation is to protect the state from the church In Accommodation: the wall of separation is to protect the church from the state b. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that religion plays an important role in the public life as shown by many traditional government practices which, to strict neutrality, pose Establishment Clause questions c. Effect on Legislative Acts: A legislative act that purposely aids or inhibits religion will be challenged as unconstitutional, either because it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Establishment Clause or both Accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the governments favored religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance What is sough under the theory of accommodation is not a declaration of unconstitutionality of a facially neutral law, but an exemption from its application or its burdensome effect Accommodation under the Religion Clauses 1. A free exercise claim could result to three kinds of accommodation (three kinds of results) a. Those which are found to be constitutionally compelled Mandatory Accommodation Results when the court finds that the accommodation is required by the Free Exercise Clause b. Those which are discretionary or legislative Permissive Accommodation Court finds that the State may, but is not required to, accommodate religious interests c. Those which the religion clauses prohibit Prohibited Accommodation Court finds that establishment concerns prevail over potential accommodation interests 2. How should the court determine which action to take? a. Use the Strict Scrutiny Compelling State Interest Test b. The test is most in line with the benevolent neutrality-accommodation approach c. Strict scrutiny is appropriate because the compelling state interest test reflects the First Amendments mandate of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society 3. Three-Step process of the Compelling State Interest Test a. If plaintiff shows that a law or government practice inhibits the free exercise of his religion, burden shifts to government to demonstrate the necessity of such law or practice for the accomplishment of a compelling secular objective that is least restrictive b. If plaintiff meets the burden and the government does not, latter is entitled to an exemption c. In order to be protected, beliefs must be sincere but not necessarily consistent, coherent, clearly articulated, or congruent with the denomination

III. Religion Clauses in the Philippine Context A. Refer to the 2003 Ruling B. The Filipino people, in adopting the 1935, 1973, and 1987 constitutions, manifested their adherence to the Benevolent Neutrality Approach that requires Accommodations in interpreting religion clauses C. Departing from US jurisprudence, Philippine jurisprudence shows that the court has allowed exemptions from a law of general application, in effect, interpreting our religion clauses to cover both mandatory and permissive accommodations D. Some Philippine cases: 1. American Bible Society v. City of Manila = court granted an exemption from a law of general application based on Free Exercise Clause; any restraint can only be justified by showing a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent 2. Ebarlinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools = absent any threat to public safety (grave and present danger test) the expulsion of the students (Jehovahs Witnesses) for refusing to salute the flag is not justified 3. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union = used Permissive Accommodation; religious exemption granted by a legislative act E. Conclusions on the Philippine Cases 1. Court carved out an exemption from a law of general application, on the strength directly of the Free Exercise clause

2.

Government is not precluded from pursuing valid objectives secular in character even if the incidental result would be favorable to a religion or sect F. After establishing that Benevolent Neutrality Accommodation is the framework in deciding free exercise cases, the Compelling State Interest Test is proper Decision on the Case at Bar A. The preliminary conditions required by the compelling state interest test has already been established in the 2003 case 1. That a law or government practice inhibits the free exercise of respondents religious beliefs, and there being no doubt as to the sincerity and centrality of her faith to claim exemption based on the free exercise clause 2. The burden now shifts to the government to demonstrate: a. A compelling secular objective b. It is the least restrictive means Arguments of the OSG 1. The OSG submitted, as evidence, two documents showing the sincerity of Escritors beliefs and the fact that the agreement was an internal arrangement of the parties 2. State has a compelling interest to override Escritors claimed religious belief and practice, in order to protect marriage and the family as basic social institutions 3. Marriage and family are crucial to the stability of the nation 4. As such, the Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness presented by Escritor should not be given effect 5. Religious beliefs should not be permitted to override laws relating to public policy such as marriage

B.

C. The OSG has failed to satisfy the quantum of proof needed as aforementioned
1. There has never been any question that the state has an interest in protecting the institutions of marriage and the family 2. The free exercise of religion is one of the fundamental rights and enjoys a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights 3. As such, it is not enough to contend that the interest of the state is IMPORTANT, it must also be COMPELLING 4. The government must do more than assert the objectives at risk if exemption is given; it must precisely show and to what extent those objectives will be undermined if exemptions are granted 5. As to the question on morality, there is no jurisprudence in Philippine jurisdiction holding that the defense of religious freedom of a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses under the same circumstances as Escritor will not prevail over the laws on adultery, concubinage, or some other law; the court cannot summarily conclude that her conduct is likewise so odious and barbaric as to be immoral and punishable by law (this is from the 2003 case)

D. In arguing that Escritor should be held administratively liable as the arrangement she had was illegal per se by
universally recognized standards, the OSG failed to appreciate that the benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests

E. Even assuming that the OSG proved compelling state interest, it was still not able to 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 1. Other than the 2 documents presented by OSG, there is no iota of evidence showing that the means the state adopted in pursuing a compelling interest is least restrictive to Escritors beliefs F. Under the present and distinct circumstances, the Supreme Court held: 1. Escritors conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom and religion 2. State interests must be upheld in order that freedoms may be enjoyed 3. In religious exercise as preferred freedom, man stands accountable to a higher authority other than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling 4. In the absence of a showing that such interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite

ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT IS HEREBY DISMISSED