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.
This case is very memorable to me. It was the subject of one of the questions during our bar
examinations in 2009. Unfortunately, I did not read the case during my review. After the examination
day, my roommate discussed the gist of the case and it was then that I realized that my answer was
wrong. The mistake bothered me even after the bar and until the result was announced. I eventually
read the decision on the case penned by Justice Puno which is about religious freedom versus
morality. The Philippines is unique because it is the only country, aside from the Vatican without a
divorce law. What makes dissolution of marriages more complicated is the fact that many couples
opt to be married in church which is of course also valid under the civil law. If the couple
successfully obtained a declaration of nullity of their marriage from the court, they are still
considered married under religious laws and vice versa. But if the church has allowed a person to live
with another married person without the dissolution of their respective marriages, will they be
considered living an immoral life under our administrative laws? This is the issue was resolved in the
land mark case of Estrada vs. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006)

Freedom vs Morality

Soledad Escritor is a court employee. A compliant was initiated against her by a certain Alejandro
Estrada alleging that she should be dismissed from service on the ground of immorality because she
is living with a married man- Luciano Quilapio Jr. During the series of investigations, it was found
that Escritor and Quilapio had been living together for more or less 20 years before the compliant
was initiated. Their respective spouses have also left them and are now living with their own
partners. Escritor invoked religious freedom as her main defense. As a member of the religious sect
Jehova’s Witnesses, she and Luciano executed aDeclaration Pledging Faithfulness after which the
elders of the congregation now allowed them to live together as husband and wife until they obtained
the proper legal remedy after which they can now marry. Since their union is perfectly acceptable
among the members of the Jehova’s Witnesses, Escritor believes that she cannot be considered to be
living an immoral life. The investigating judge in fact dismissed the compliant but the Court
Administrator reversed and recommended that Escritor be suspended for six months.

Religious Freedom

The Supreme Court through Justice Puno gave a lengthy discussion on the case and even traced the
origin of “religious freedom” from the United States jurisprudence to ours. The original case was
remanded to give ample opportunity to the Solicitor General to present evidence. In the end the Court
upheld Escritor’s right to religious freedom and dismissed the complaint against her. The Court
decreed: “Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these distinct circumstances, respondent
Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from
the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion. The Court recognizes that state
interests must be upheld in order that freedoms – including religious freedom – may be enjoyed. In
the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to an
authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling
that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In the
absence of a showing that such state interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.”
At present, the House of Representatives passed a bill which aims to recognize church annulments
and the controversial divorce bill. Will the Philippines join the rest of the world and leave the
Vatican as the only country without a divorce law? Perhaps only time will tell.
 Estrada vs. Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651.
August 4, 2003 Benevolent Neutrality
JANUARY 26, 2018

FACTS:

Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors that
respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her
husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. He filed the charge against
Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the
court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the
court condones her act.

ISSUE:

What is the doctrine of benevolent neutrality? Is respondent entitled thereto? Is the doctrine of
benevolent neutrality consistent with the free exercise clause?

RULING:

Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but
at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent
neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not
offend compelling state interests. It still remains to be seen if respondent is entitled to such
doctrine as the state has not been afforded the chance has demonstrate the compelling state
interest of prohibiting the act of respondent, thus the case is remanded to the RTC.
Benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it prohibits such
exercise given a compelling state interest. It is the respondent’s stance that her conjugal
arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise
protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free
Exercise Clause, the Court’s action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to
religious freedom. We cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondent’s claim of
religious freedom, but must instead apply the “compelling state interest” test. The government
must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of
demonstrating the state’s compelling interest which can override respondent’s religious belief
and practice.