ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, complainant, vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, respondent.

Estrada Vs Escritor
FACTS : Complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an
investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, is living with a man not her
husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. Estrada is not personally related
either to Escritor or her partner. Nevertheless, 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. Respondent Escritor
testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her husband having died
in 1998. She admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage
for twenty years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah's
Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity
with their religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a
"Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness," 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.

ISSUE : Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of "gross and
immoral conduct."

HELD : The two streams of jurisprudence - separationist or accommodationist - are anchored on a

different reading of the "wall of separation." Separationist - This approach erects an absolute barrier to
formal interdependence of religion and state. Religious institutions could not receive aid, whether direct
or indirect, from the state. Nor could the state adjust its secular programs to alleviate burdens the
programs placed on believers. the strict neutrality or separationist view is largely used by the Court,
showing the Courts tendency to press relentlessly towards a more secular society Accommodationist Benevolent neutrality thus recognizes that religion plays an important role in the public life of the
United States as shown by many traditional government practices which An accommodationist holds
that it is good public policy, and sometimes constitutionally required, for the state to make conscious
and deliberate efforts to avoid interference with religious freedom. On the other hand, the strict
neutrality adherent believes that it is good public policy, and also constitutionally required, for the
government to avoid religion-specific policy even at the cost of inhibiting religious exercise First, the
accommodationist interpretation is most consistent with the language of the First Amendment. Second,
the accommodationist position best achieves the purposes of the First Amendment. Third, the
accommodationist interpretation is particularly necessary to protect adherents of minority religions
from the inevitable effects of majoritarianism, which include ignorance and indifference and overt
hostility to the minority Fourth, the accommodationist position is practical as it is a commonsensical way
to deal with the various needs and beliefs of different faiths in a pluralistic nation. The "compelling state

interest" test is proper where conduct is involved for the whole gamut of human conduct has different
effects on the states interests: some effects may be immediate and short-term while others delayed
and far-reaching. A test that would protect the interests of the state in preventing a substantive evil,
whether immediate or delayed, is therefore necessary In applying the test, the first inquiry is whether
respondents right to religious freedom has been burdened. There is no doubt that choosing between
keeping her employment and abandoning her religious belief and practice and family on the one hand,
and giving up her employment and keeping her religious practice and family on the other hand, puts a
burden on her free exercise of religion The second step is to ascertain respondents sincerity in her
religious belief. Respondent appears to be sincere in her religious belief and practice and is not merely
using the "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" to avoid punishment for immorality. She did not secure
the Declaration only after entering the judiciary where the moral standards are strict and defined, much
less only after an administrative case for immorality was filed against herIndeed, it is inappropriate for
the complainant, a private person, to present evidence on the compelling interest of the state. The
burden of evidence should be discharged by the proper agency of the government which is the Office of
the Solicitor General. 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.