ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant, vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent

A.M. No.
P-02-1651 June 22, 2006
ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant, vs.

SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent.
PUNO, J.:
___________________________
FACTS:
Complainant Alejandro Estrada for an investigation of respondent 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 Escritor 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.
Respondent Escritor however testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999,
she was already a widow, her husband having died in 1998.She admitted that she started
living with the man without the benefit of marriage more than twenty years ago when her
husband was still alive but living with another woman. But as a member of the religious sect
known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, respondent
asserted that their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs and has
the approval of her congregation. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed
on July 28, 1991, a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness."
For Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Declaration allows members of the congregation who
have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. The Declaration thus
makes the resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all over the world
except in countries where divorce is allowed.
By invoking the religious beliefs, practices and moral standards of her congregation,
in asserting that her conjugal arrangement does not constitute disgraceful and immoral
conduct for which she should be held administratively liable, the Court had to determine the
contours of religious freedom under Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution, which provides,
viz:
Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting

the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall
be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of immoral act unbecoming member/employee

of the court.
HELD:
No. 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.
It is not enough to contend that the state's interest is important, because our
Constitution itself holds the right to religious freedom sacred. The State must articulate in
specific terms the state interest involved in preventing the exemption, which must be
compelling, for only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests can limit the
fundamental right to religious freedom. To rule otherwise would be to emasculate the Free
Exercise Clause as a source of right by itself.
Although she was widowed in 1998, thereby lifting the legal impediment to marry on
her part, her mate was still not capacitated to remarry. Thus, their declarations remained
valid. In sum, therefore, insofar as the congregation is concerned, there is nothing immoral
about the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they remain members in
good standing in the congregation.
The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these governmental
actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the government's favored
form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without
hindrance.
Not any interest of the State would suffice to prevail over the right to religious
freedom as this is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred position in the hierarchy of
rights - "the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights," in the words of Jefferson. This
right is sacred for an invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to higher
sovereignty.
The Court dismissed the administrative complaint.

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant, vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant, vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant, vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.M. No.

P-02-1651 June 22, 2006

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant, vs.

Complainant Alejandro Estrada for an investigation of respondent Soledad Escritor,

Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting

Whether or not respondent is guilty of immoral act unbecoming member/employee

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint.

You might also like