Case : Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No.

P-02-1651 June 22, 2006

.

Facts:
Complainant Alejandro Estrada filed complaint demanding investigation of respondent for
cohabiting with a guy who was not her spouse, with whom she had a child. The complainant
believed she was engaging in an immoral act harming the court's reputation. Therefore,
petitioner claimed that she should not be allowed to continue working in the court, as it may
appear to condone her actions.

Respondent and her partner are both members of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower
Society. As far as the congregation was concerned, there was nothing immoral about the
couple's marital arrangement, and they remained members of the congregation in good
standing.

Issue:
WON respondent could be held administratively liable for committing an act that was within the
ambit of her right under the religion clauses of the Constitution

Ruling/ Held:

No. The court ruled that respondent cannot be held administratively liable. Rights under the
religion clauses, like the other rights, are raised in conjunction with governmental action, almost
always in the form of legislative acts. The benevolent neutrality theory explains that with respect
to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the
government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance. The purpose of accommodations is to remove a burden on or
facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion. In the case at bar, it is violative of
this principle that respondent be held liable for acts within the ambit of her religious beliefs.