The Supreme Court of the Philippines, ruling in 2003[1] and 2006[2] in the landmark case of Estrada

vs. Escritor, established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality-accommodation. The 2006 ruling,
penned by former Chief Justice Puno, explained benevolent-neutrality in the context of U.S.
jurisprudence as follows:
Under the benevolent-neutrality theory, the principle underlying the First Amendment is that freedom to
carry out ones duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of
legislature. Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against
discriminatory legislation. With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent
neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. [2]

The ruling went on to cite a U.S. Supreme Court decision which had held that if prohibiting the
exercise of religion is merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid
provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.[3] Though concurring in the decision,
Justice O'Connor dissented strongly from the rationale, arguing that a compelling state interest test
should have been applied.[4]
Echoing Justice O'Connor's point from the U.S. case, the ruling in Estrada vs. Escritor went on to
quote her as having said that strict scrutiny is appropriate for free exercise challenges because [t]he
compelling interest test reflects the First Amendments mandate of preserving religious liberty to the
fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.[2]
The ruling then declared Underlying the compelling state interest test is the notion that free exercise
is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it should be subject to strict scrutiny, and summarized
a three-part compelling state interest test by quoting Michael W. McConnell as follows:
If the plaintiff can show that a law or government practice inhibits the free exercise of his religious beliefs,
the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law or practice is necessary to the
accomplishment of some important (or compelling) secular objective and that it is the least restrictive
means of achieving that objective. If the plaintiff meets this burden and the government does not, the
plaintiff is entitled to exemption from the law or practice at issue. In order to be protected, the claimants
beliefs must be sincere, but they need not necessarily be consistent, coherent, clearly articulated, or
congruent with those of the claimants religious denomination. Only beliefs rooted in religion are
protected by the Free Exercise Clause; secular beliefs, however sincere and conscientious, do not
suffice.[5]

The ruling noted that the then-current prevailing view under U.S. law is that there are no required
accommodation under the First Amendment, although it permits of legislative accommodations.
Considering Philippine jurisprudence, though, the ruling said:
By juxtaposing the American Constitution and jurisprudence against that of the Philippines, it is
immediately clear that one cannot simply conclude that we have adoptedlock, stock and barrelthe
religion clauses as embodied in the First Amendment, and therefore, the U.S. Courts interpretation of the
same. Unlike in the U.S. where legislative exemptions of religion had to be upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court as constituting permissive accommodations, similar exemptions for religion are mandatory
accommodations under our own constitutions.[2]

These landmark decisions in Estrada vs. Escritor established that benevolent neutralityaccommodation is the framework by which free exercise cases must be decided in the Philippines.

This amounts to a requirement that any law which conflicts with a violator's sincerely held religious
beliefs must pass a strict scrutiny test in order to be enforceable.