Estradavs.

Escritor
AMP021651,August4,2003
FACTS:
SoledadEscritorisacourtinterpretersince1999intheRTCofLas
PinasCity.AlejandroEstrada,thecomplainant,wrotetoJudgeJoseF.
Caoibes,presidingjudgeofBranch253,RTCofLasPinasCity,
requestingforaninvestigationofrumorsthatEscritorhasbeenliving
withLucianoQuilapioJr.,amannotherhusband,andhadeventually
begottenason.Escritorshusband,whohadlivedwithanotherwoman,
diedayearbeforesheenteredintothejudiciary.Ontheotherhand,
Quilapioisstilllegallymarriedtoanotherwoman.Estradaisnot
relatedtoeitherEscritororQuilapioandisnotaresidentofLasPinas
butofBacoor,Cavite.Accordingtothecomplainant,respondent
shouldnotbeallowedtoremainemployedinthejudiciaryforitwill
appearasifthecourtallowssuchact.
EscritorisamemberofthereligioussectknownastheJehovahs
WitnessesandtheWatchTowerandBibleTractSocietywhereher
conjugalarrangementwithQuilapioisinconformitywiththeir
religiousbeliefs.Aftertenyearsoflivingtogether,sheexecutedon
July28,1991aDeclarationofPledgingFaithfulnesswhichwas
approvedbythecongregation.Suchdeclarationiseffectivewhenlegal
impedimentsrenderitimpossibleforacoupletolegalizetheirunion.
Gregorio,Salazar,amemberoftheJehovahsWitnessessince1985
andhasbeenapresidingministersince1991,testifiedandexplained
theimportofandproceduresforexecutingthedeclarationwhichwas

completelyexecutedbyEscritorandQuilapiosinAtimonan,Quezon
andwassignedbythreewitnessesandrecordedinWatchTower
CentralOffice.
ISSUE:
Whetherornotrespondentshouldbefoundguiltyoftheadministrative
chargeofgrossandimmoralconductandbepenalizedbytheState
forsuchconjugalarrangement.
HELD:
A distinction between public and secular morality and religious
moralityshouldbekeptinmind.ThejurisdictionoftheCourtextends
onlytopublicandsecularmorality.
TheCourtstatesthatourConstitutionadheresthebenevolentneutrality
approachthatgivesroomforaccommodationofreligiousexercisesas
requiredbytheFreeExerciseClause.Thisbenevolentneutralitycould
allowforaccommodationofmoralitybasedonreligion,providedit
doesnotoffendcompellingstateinterests.

Thestatesinterestisthepreservationoftheintegrityofthejudiciary
bymaintainingamongitsranksahighstandardofmoralityand
decency.ThereisnothingintheOCAs(OfficeoftheCourt
Administrator)memorandumtotheCourtthatdemonstrateshowthis
interestissocompellingthatitshouldoverriderespondentspleaof

religiousfreedom.Indeed,itisinappropriateforthecomplainant,a
privateperson,topresentevidenceonthecompellinginterestofthe
state.Theburdenofevidenceshouldbedischargedbytheproper
agencyofthegovernmentwhichistheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral.
Inordertoproperlysettlethecaseatbar,itisessentialthatthe
governmentbegivenanopportunitytodemonstratethecompelling
stateinterestitseekstoupholdinopposingtherespondentsposition
thatherconjugalarrangementisnotimmoralandpunishableasitis
withinthescopeoffreeexerciseprotection.TheCourtcouldnot
prohibitandpunishherconductwheretheFreeExerciseClause
protectsit,sincethiswouldbeanunconstitutionalencroachmentofher
righttoreligiousfreedom.Furthermore,thecourtcannotsimplytakea
passinglookatrespondentsclaimofreligiousfreedombutmustalso
applythecompellingstateinteresttest.
INVIEWWHEREOF,thecaseisREMANDEDtotheOfficeofthe
CourtAdministrator.TheSolicitorGeneralisorderedtointervenein
thecasewhereitwillbegiventheopportunity(a)toexaminethe
sincerityandcentralityofrespondent'sclaimedreligiousbeliefand
practice;(b)topresentevidenceonthestate's"compellinginterest"to
overriderespondent'sreligiousbeliefandpractice;and(c)toshowthat
themeansthestateadoptsinpursuingitsinterestistheleastrestrictive
torespondent'sreligiousfreedom.Therehearingshouldbeconcluded
thirty(30)daysfromtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator'sreceiptof
thisDecision.