Estrada vs.

Escritor ,

FACTS: Soledad 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. Respondents husband died
a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman.

Complainant Alejandro Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent. According to complainant,
respondent should not be allowed to remain employed therein for it tarnish the reputation of the court and will appear as
if the court condones such act.

Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religionthe Jehovahs 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.

RULING: 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 States 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 States 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.
To properly settle the issue in the case at bar, the government should be given the opportunity to demonstrate the
compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the respondents 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 Courts action would be an unconstitutional
encroachment of her right to religious freedom.
[454]
We cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondents claim
of religious freedom, but must instead apply the compelling state interest test. To repeat, this is a case of first
impression where we are applying the compelling state interest test in a case involving purely religious conduct. The
careful application of the test is indispensable as how we will decide the case will make a decisive difference in the life of
the respondent who stands not only before the Court but before her Jehovah God.