ESTRADA vs ESCRITOR

A.M. No. P-02-1651

Facts: A sworn letter-complaint dated July 27, 2000 was filed by the petitioner Alejandro Estrada to Judge
Jose F. Caoibes Jr., who was the presiding judge of Branch 253 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City.
In the said complaint, the petitioner requested for an investigation on the respondent, Soledad Escritor, a court
interpreter in the said court, regarding the rumors that the respondent is living with a man not her husband and
that they have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. The petitioner is not related to either of the respondent
or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the charges against the respondent on the belief that the latter is
committing an immoral act which tarnishes the image of the court and that, she should no longer be remained
employed as it seems to appear as if the court condones the said immoral act.

A preliminary conference was set on October 12, 2000 where the respondent testified that when she entered
the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow since her husband died in 1998. She admitted living with
Luciano Quilapio Jr. without the benefit of marriage and that they have a son. However, being a member of
the religious sect Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, such conjugal
arrangement is acceptable with their religious belief. She further alleged that she executed a Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness in 1991. Such declaration is effective when legal impediments render it impossible for
the couple to legalize their union. It gives them a right to a marital relationship and is binding within the
congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. But once all the legal
impediments for both parties are lifted, the couple can already register their marriage with the civil authorities
and the validity of the declarations ceases. In sum, therefore, in so far as the congregation is concerned, there
is nothing immoral about the conjugal arrangement between the respondent and her partner.

Judge Caoibes endorsed the complaint to the Executive Judge who in turn endorsed the same to the Court
Administrator. The Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Christopher Lock recommended that the case be
referred to Executive Judge Maceda, RTC Las Pias for investigation, report and recommendation. Judge
Maceda recommended the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent. However, the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA), through DCA Lock recommended that respondent be found guilty of immorality
and that she be penalized with suspension of six months and one day without pay with a warning that a
repetition of a similar act will be dealt with more severely in accordance with the Civil Service Rules.

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

Held: The Court states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
the accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. 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.

A three-step-process is followed in weighing the states interest and religious freedom when these collide:
1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of religion?
2. Is there a sufficient compelling state interest to justify this infringement of religious liberty?
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means possible so that the free
exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state?

It is apparent from the OCAs reliance upon this ruling that the state interest it upholds is the preservation of
the integrity of the judiciary by maintaining among its ranks a high standard of morality and decency.
However, there is nothing in the OCAs recommendation to the Court that demonstrates how this interest is so
compelling that it should override respondents plea of religious freedom nor is it shown that the means
employed by the government in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondents religious exercise.

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. 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.
To repeat, this is a case of first impression where we are applying the "compelling state interest" test in a case
involving purely religious conduct. The careful application of the test is indispensable as how we will decide the
case will make a decisive difference in the life of the respondent who stands not only before the Court but
before her Jehovah God.

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 respondents claimed religious belief and practice; (b) to present evidence on the states
"compelling interest" to override respondents religious belief and practice; and (c) to show that the means the
state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondents religious freedom.

The rehearing should be concluded thirty (30) days from the Office of the Court Administrators receipt of this
Decision.