Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Estrada v. Escritor (2006) Administrative Matter: Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct Complainant: Alejandro Estrada Respondent: Soledad F. Escritor Ponente: J. Puno Date: 22 June 2006 Case Statement: Soledad stands before the Court invoking her religious freedom and her Jehovah God in a bid to save her family united without the benefit of legal marriage and livelihood. The State, on the other hand, seeks to wield its power to regulate her behavior and protect its interest in marriage and family and the integrity of the courts where Soledad is an employee. Facts: Religion Clauses (First Amendment) Establishment Clause (No favored religions/religious groups) Free Exercise Clause (No penalties for religious beliefs) Jurisprudence of separation Strict separation/Strict neutrality (Government Neutrality) o Establishment clause: meant to protect the State from the Church religious orgs. should never receive aid, direct or indirect, from the State. Benevolent neutrality/Accommodation o Meant to protect the Church from the State separation must be clearly defined Reasons why the (Philippine) Consti. mandates the Court to make exemptions in cases involving criminal laws of general application (on ground of free exercise) Benevolent neutrality-accommodation is even more pronounced in the Philippines Purpose of accommodation theory (mandatory or permissive): to address the inadvertent burdensome effect that an otherwise facially neutral law would have on religious exercise To protect minority religions from the inevitable effects of majoritarianism Exemption from penal laws on account of religion is not an entirely alien concept ex. exemption from bigamy charges of Moslem marriages Unlike other rights (ex. life, liberty, and property), religion clauses stated in absolute terms Issues: 1.
1999 Soledad entered the judiciary, already a widow (since 1998) Started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr (extramarital, 20 years hence) while her husband was also living w/ another woman o Has a son w/ Quilapio o Member of Jehovahs Witnesses (JW) Soledad claims that the conjugal arrangement is in conformity w/ her religion 28 July 1991 as proof of her commitment to Quilapio, executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness o This pledge allows members of JW who had been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations [w/ other persons] o Recognition that given the circumstances, those executing the pledge are not able to get civil recognition of the subsequent marriage, because of legal impediments Even after her subsisting marriage was dissolved by the death of her husband, Soledads partner Quilapio still was not capacitated to marry 27 July 2000 Estrada requested Judge Caoibes, Jr. (Las Pinas RTC, Br. 253) to investigate Soledad working as a court interpreter for her live-in arrangement. o Subsequently, she was charged with committing disgraceful and immoral conduct under Book V, Title I, Chapter VI Sec. 46(b)(5) of the Revised Administrative Code 4 Aug 2003 The SC remanded the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator. o Requested OSG to intervene (Compelling State Interest) Examine sincerity/centrality of claimed religious beliefs/practices Present evidence: compelling state interest Show: means of pursuing state interest least restrictive o TASK OF COURT: determine whether evidence adduced by the State proves its more compelling interest and on that basis, decide if Soledad should be held administratively liable
Should Soledad be found guilty of the administrative charge, disgraceful and immoral conduct *for her live-in arrangement with Quilapio, for religious reasons]?
Ruling/Ratio: 1. NO. [Soledads conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized she is entitled to an exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion] Compelling State Interest Test a. Sincerity of religious belief Beyond serious doubt Burden thus shifted to govt: it must be able to show that conditions (b) and (c) are sufficiently met b. Presence of compelling state interest OSG failed to show evidence to support this Only contended that the State has a compelling interest to override the respondents religious beliefs in order to protect marriage and the family as basic social institutions (Sec. 12, Art. II, Consti.) Carpio: majority opinion condone and accords a semblance of legitimacy to the respondents patently unlawful cohabitation and facilitates the circumvention of the Revised Penal Code
Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts:
c.
Opinions: Ynares-Santiago (Dissenting): o What is the meaning/standard of disgraceful and immoral conduct *for disciplinary cases+? SC has never justified, condoned, or blessed the continuation of an adulterous/illicit relationship Civil Service Law Standard: the offense is complete if respondent intended to perform the condemned act Morality in this view: legal not philosophical Soledad would have been guilty of adultery prior to her husbands death Now she would still be a coprincipal in the crime of concubinage Thus, acts defined as criminal under penal law have been committed o Noted that the decision would not just be pro hac vice for Soledad, but applicable to all the