Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Escritor
A.M. No. P-02-1651 | 2003-08-04
Subject:
Freedom of Religion (Free Exercise Clause.
Non-Establishment Clause), Strict Neutrality
vs. Benevolent Neutrality
Facts:
Alejandro Estrada wrote a letter to the judge
of RTC Branch 253, Las Pinas City,
complaining of immoral acts committed by
Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter in said
court, who is allegedly living with a man not
her husband.
During the investigation, Escritor 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 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." Quilapio executed a similar
pledge. At the time Escritor executed her
pledge, her husband was still alive but living
with another woman. 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.
Moreover, at the time
Escritor joined the judiciary, her husband
has already died and there was no longer
any legal impediment to marry on her part,
although Quilapio was still married to
another but separated.
Escritor, who is charged with committing
"gross and immoral conduct" under the
Revised Administrative Code, invokes the
moral standards of her religion, the
Jehovah's Witnesses, in asserting that her
Held:
Free exercise clause
1. The Free Exercise Clause embraces two
concepts - freedom to believe and freedom
to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature
of things, the second cannot be. Conduct
remains subject to regulation for the
protection of society.
Evolution of Different Tests employed by the
courts under the Free Exercise Clause
(a) The belief-action test Under this test,
regulation of religiously dictated conduct
would be upheld no matter how central the
conduct was to the exercise of religion and
no matter how insignificant was the
government's
non-religious
regulatory
interest so long as the government is
proscribing action and not belief.
(b) The Court abandoned the simplistic
belief-action
distinction
and
instead
recognized
the deliberate-inadvertent
distinction, i.e., the distinction between
deliberate state interference of religious
exercise for religious reasons which was
plainly unconstitutional and government's
inadvertent interference with religion in
pursuing some secular objective.
(c) The two-part balancing test of validity of
the infringing regulation where the first step
was for plaintiff to show that the regulation
placed a real burden on his religious
exercise. Next, the burden would be upheld
only if the state showed that it was pursuing
an overriding secular goal by the means
which imposed the least burden on religious
practices.
(d) Then came the stricter compelling state
interest test, this latter test stressed that
Strict
Neutrality
Neutrality
vs.
Benevolent
adopts
Benevolent
6.
The Philippine constitution's religion
clauses prescribe not a strict but a
benevolent neutrality. Benevolent neutrality
recognizes that government must pursue its
secular goals and interests but at the same
time strives to uphold religious liberty to the
greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits. Thus, although the
morality contemplated by laws is secular,
benevolent neutrality could allow for
accommodation of morality based on
religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interests.
7. In other words, in the absence of
legislation granting exemption from a law of
general applicability, the Court can carve
out an exception when the religion clauses
justify it.
Tests applied
freedom
on
exercise
of
religious
8.
The
case
at
bar
does
not
involve speech where the "clear and present
danger" and "grave and immediate danger"
tests were appropriate.
9.
The present case involves purely
conduct arising from religious belief. The
"compelling state interest" test is proper
where conduct is involved. Under this test,
not any interest of the state would suffice to
prevail over the right to religious freedom as
this is a fundamental right that enjoys a
preferred position in the hierarchy of rights.
10. In determining which shall prevail
between the state's interest and religious
liberty, reasonableness shall be the guide.
Religious clauses and Morality
11. The morality referred to in the law is
public and secular morality, not religious
morality. The distinction is important
because the jurisdiction of the Court
extends only to public and secular morality.
Whatever pronouncement the Court makes
in the case at bar should be understood only
in this realm.
BENEVOLENT
NEUTRALITY
PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE
IN
BENEVOLENT
NEUTRALITY
(Accommodation)
VS.
STRICT
NEUTRALITY (Separation)
Stated
otherwise,
using
benevolent
neutrality as a standard could result to three
situations of accommodation: those where
accommodation is required, those where it
is