Estrada vs.
Escritor ISSUE:
AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
FACTS:
Soledad Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas
City. Alejandro Estrada, the complainant, wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes,
presiding judge of the RTC of Las Pinas City, requesting for an investigation
of rumors that Escritor has been living with Luciano Quilapio Jr., a man not
her husband, and had eventually begotten a son. Escritor’s husband, who had
lived with another woman, died a year before she entered into the
judiciary. On the other hand, Quilapio is still legally married to another
woman. Estrada is not related to either Escritor or Quilapio and is not a
resident of Las Pinas but of Bacoor, Cavite. According to the complainant,
respondent should not be allowed to remain employed in the judiciary for it
will appear as if the court allows such act.
Escritor is a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses
and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society where her conjugal
arrangement with Quilapio is in conformity with their religious
beliefs. After ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a
“Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” which was approved by the
congregation. Such declaration is effective when legal impediments render it
impossible for a couple to legalize their union. Gregorio, Salazar, a member
of the Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1985 and has been a presiding minister
since 1991, testified and explained the import of and procedures for executing
the declaration which was completely executed by Escritor and Quilapio’s in
Atimonan, Quezon and was signed by three witnesses and recorded in Watch
Tower Central Office.
Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative
charge of “gross and immoral conduct” and be penalized by the State for such
conjugal arrangement.
HELD:
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 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.
The state’s interest is the preservation of the integrity of the judiciary by
maintaining among its ranks a high standard of morality and
decency. “There is nothing in the OCA’s (Office of the Court Administrator)
memorandum to the Court that demonstrates how this interest is so
compelling that it should override respondent’s plea of religious
freedom. Indeed, 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”.
In order to properly settle the case at bar, it is essential that the government
be given an opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest it
seeks to uphold in opposing the respondent’s position that her conjugal
arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it is within the scope of
free exercise protection. The Court could not prohibit and punish her
conduct where the Free Exercise Clause protects it, since this would be an
unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious
freedom. Furthermore, the court cannot simply take a passing look at
respondent’s claim of religious freedom but must also apply the
“compelling state interest” test.

RULING:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the case is REMANDED to the Office of the Court

Administrator. The Solicitor General is ordered to intervene in the case where
it will be given the opportunity (a) to examine the sincerity and centrality of
respondent's claimed religious belief and practice; (b) to present evidence on
the state's "compelling interest" to override respondent's religious belief and
practice; and (c) to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its
interest is the least restrictive to respondent's religious freedom. The
rehearing should be concluded thirty (30) days from the Office of the Court
Administrator's receipt of this Decision.