Submitted by: Redentor Rayla

Subject : Constitutional Law 2

Estrada Vs Escritor

A.M. No. P-02-1651   June 22, 2006 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-1021-P)
ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant,  vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent.

 FACTS :

Complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an
investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, is living with
a man not her husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old.
Estrada is not personally related either to Escritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed
the charge against Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that
tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed
therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Respondent Escritor testified
that when she entered the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her husband
having died in 1998. She 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 the 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," 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.

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

 HELD :

The two streams of jurisprudence - separationist or accommodationist - are anchored

on a different reading of the "wall of separation." Separationist - This approach erects
an absolute barrier to formal interdependence of religion and state. Religious institutions
could not receive aid, whether direct or indirect, from the state. Nor could the state
adjust its secular programs to alleviate burdens the programs placed on believers. the
strict neutrality or separationist view is largely used by the Court, showing the Court’s
tendency to press relentlessly towards a more secular society. Accommodationist -
Benevolent neutrality thus recognizes that religion plays an important role in the public
life of the United States as shown by many traditional government practices which An
accommodationist holds that it is good public policy, and sometimes constitutionally
required, for the state to make conscious and deliberate efforts to avoid interference
with religious freedom.

On the other hand, the strict neutrality adherent believes that it is good public policy,
and also constitutionally required, for the government to avoid religion-specific policy
even at the cost of inhibiting religious exercise.
 First, the accommodationist interpretation is most consistent with the language of
the First Amendment.
 Second, the accommodationist position best achieves the purposes of the First
Amendment.
 Third, the accommodationist interpretation is particularly necessary to protect
adherents of minority religions from the inevitable effects of majoritarianism,
which include ignorance and indifference and overt hostility to the minority.
 Fourth, the accommodationist position is practical as it is a commonsensical way
to deal with the various needs and beliefs of different faiths in a pluralistic nation.

The "compelling state interest" test is proper where conduct is involved for the whole
gamut of human conduct has different effects on the state’s interests: some effects may
be immediate and short-term while others delayed and far-reaching. A test that would
protect the interests of the state in preventing a substantive evil, whether immediate or
delayed, is therefore necessary In applying the test, the first inquiry is whether
respondent’s right to religious freedom has been burdened. There is no doubt that
choosing between keeping her employment and abandoning her religious belief and
practice and family on the one hand, and giving up her employment and keeping her
religious practice and family on the other hand, puts a burden on her free exercise of
religion The second step is to ascertain respondent’s sincerity in her religious belief.
Respondent appears to be sincere in her religious belief and practice and is not merely
using the "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" to avoid punishment for immorality.

She did not secure the Declaration only after entering the judiciary where the moral
standards are strict and defined, much less only after an administrative case for
immorality was filed against her 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 respondent’s stance that her conjugal
arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free
exercise protection.