Separation of Church and State

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA v. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR

A.M. No. P-02-1651 June 22, 2006

Facts: Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas City. She has been living with Quilapio, a
man who is not her husband, for more than twenty five years and had a son with him as well. Respondent’s
husband died a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman.
Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent. According to
complainant, respondent should not be allowed to remain employed therein for it will appear as if the court allows
such act.
Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion—the Jehovah’s Witnesses
and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. They allegedly have a ‘Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness’ under
the approval of their congregation. For Jehova's Witnesses, the Declaration allows members of the congregation
who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into a marital relations. The Declaration thus makes the
resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is
allowed. Such a declaration is effective when legal impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their
union.

Issue: Whether or not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement. (No)

Held: The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion.
The Court states that our Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, in arguing that respondent
should not be held administratively liable as the arrangement she had was "illegally per se because, by universally
recognized standards, it is inherently or by its nature bad, improper or immoral and contrary to good conscience,"
the Solicitor General failed to appreciate that benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality
based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interest.
Even assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest, it has to further
demonstrate that the state has 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. Thus the conjugal arrangement cannot be
penalized for it constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion.
In the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, however a man stands accountable to an authority
higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will
erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In the absenc of a showing that such state
interest exist, man must be allowed to subscribe to the INfinite.