how religious freedom can prevail over state authority: the landmark case of estrada v. escritor...

How Religious Freedom How Religious Freedom can prevail over State can prevail over State

Authority:Authority:

The landmark case of The landmark case of

Estrada v. EscritorEstrada v. Escritor

JUDGE MARIA ELISA S. DIYJUDGE MARIA ELISA S. DIY

1987 Philippine Constitution1987 Philippine Constitution

Section 5.Section 5.

No law shall be made respecting an No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. exercise of civil or political rights.

1987 Philippine Constitution1987 Philippine Constitution

Section 12. Section 12.

The State recognizes the sanctity of The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.receive the support of the Government.

The Family Code of the Philippines The Family Code of the Philippines

Article 1. Article 1.

Marriage is a special contract of Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. the limits provided by this Code.

Estrada vs. EscritorEstrada vs. Escritor

(A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003 (A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003 & June 22, 2006)& June 22, 2006)

Created a glorious impact in the Created a glorious impact in the necessary balance between State necessary balance between State Authority and Authority and Freedom of ReligionFreedom of Religion

Foreseen that this precedent shall Foreseen that this precedent shall pave the way for stronger emphasis pave the way for stronger emphasis and respect for and respect for Religious FreedomReligious Freedom

Re: Estrada vs. EscritorRe: Estrada vs. EscritorDECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESSDECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS

I, Soledad S. Escritor, do hereby declare that I I, Soledad S. Escritor, do hereby declare that I have accepted Luciano D. Quilapio, Jr., as my mate have accepted Luciano D. Quilapio, Jr., as my mate in marital relationship; that I have done all within in marital relationship; that I have done all within my ability to obtain legal recognition of this my ability to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the proper public authorities and relationship by the proper public authorities and that it is because of having been unable to do so that it is because of having been unable to do so that I therefore make this public declaration that I therefore make this public declaration pledging faithfulness in this marital relationship. pledging faithfulness in this marital relationship.

I recognize this relationship as a binding tie I recognize this relationship as a binding tie before 'Jehovah' God and before all persons to be before 'Jehovah' God and before all persons to be held to and honored in full accord with the held to and honored in full accord with the principles of God's Word. I will continue to seek the principles of God's Word. I will continue to seek the means to obtain legal recognition of this means to obtain legal recognition of this relationship by the civil authorities and if at any relationship by the civil authorities and if at any future time a change in circumstances make this future time a change in circumstances make this possible, I promise to legalize this union. possible, I promise to legalize this union.

Signed this 28th day of July 1991.Signed this 28th day of July 1991.

Re: Estrada vs. EscritorRe: Estrada vs. Escritor

Escritor's partner, Quilapio, executed Escritor's partner, Quilapio, executed a similar pledge on the same day. a similar pledge on the same day.

Both pledges were executed in Both pledges were executed in Atimonan, Quezon and signed by Atimonan, Quezon and signed by three witnesses. three witnesses.

At the time Escritor executed her At the time Escritor executed her pledge, her husband was still alive pledge, her husband was still alive but living with another woman. but living with another woman.

Quilapio was likewise married at that Quilapio was likewise married at that time, but had been separated in fact time, but had been separated in fact from his wife. from his wife.


IssueIssue::Whether or not respondent should Whether or not respondent should

be found guilty of the administrative be found guilty of the administrative charge of “gross and immoral conduct”. charge of “gross and immoral conduct”.

Sub-issue:Sub-issue:

Whether or not respondent's right to Whether or not respondent's right to religious freedom should carve out an religious freedom should carve out an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for which government on illicit relations for which government employees are held administratively liable. employees are held administratively liable.

Free Exercise Clause and Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause Establishment Clause

Found in Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Found in Section 5, Article III of the 1987 ConstitutionConstitution

Philippine Jurisprudence RevisitedPhilippine Jurisprudence Revisited

1) 1) Aglipay v. RuizAglipay v. Ruiz

> Religion, defined> Religion, defined

2) 2) Gerona v. Sec. of EducationGerona v. Sec. of Education

> Interpreting the free exercise > Interpreting the free exercise clauseclause

Free Exercise Clause and Free Exercise Clause and Establishment ClauseEstablishment Clause

Philippine Jurisprudence RevisitedPhilippine Jurisprudence Revisited3) 3) American Bible Society v. City of American Bible Society v. City of

ManilaManila > Religious Speech; right to > Religious Speech; right to disseminate religious informationdisseminate religious information

4) 4) Tolentino v. Sec. of FinanceTolentino v. Sec. of Finance > Tax imposed on sale of religious > Tax imposed on sale of religious materialsmaterials

5) Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers 5) Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers UnionUnion > Establishment Clause> Establishment Clause


Tests in determining when religious freedom may Tests in determining when religious freedom may be validly limited: be validly limited:

1)1) ““Immediate and grave danger to the security and Immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community” and “infringement of welfare of the community” and “infringement of religious freedom only to the smallest extent religious freedom only to the smallest extent necessary” necessary”

2)2) Religious exercise may be indirectly burdened by a Religious exercise may be indirectly burdened by a general law which has for its purpose and effect general law which has for its purpose and effect the advancement of the state’s secular goals, the advancement of the state’s secular goals, provided that there is no other means by which the provided that there is no other means by which the state can accomplish this purpose without state can accomplish this purpose without imposing such burdenimposing such burden

3)3) The “compelling state interest” test which grants The “compelling state interest” test which grants exemptions when general laws conflict with exemptions when general laws conflict with religious exercise, unless a compelling state religious exercise, unless a compelling state interest intervenes interest intervenes


Philippine Jurisprudence RevisitedPhilippine Jurisprudence Revisited

6) 6) J.B.L. Reyes v. BagatsingJ.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing

> Freedom of worship in relation to > Freedom of worship in relation to freedom of expression, speech, and freedom of expression, speech, and peaceable assemblypeaceable assembly

7) 7) Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schoolsof Schools

> Exemption from the flag ceremony > Exemption from the flag ceremony


Philippine Jurisprudence RevisitedPhilippine Jurisprudence Revisited8) 8) Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of AppealsIglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals > The “clear and present danger” test> The “clear and present danger” test9) 9) Pamil v. Teleron, et al.Pamil v. Teleron, et al. > Disqualifying ecclesiastics from > Disqualifying ecclesiastics from

appointment or electionappointment or election10) 10) Fonacier v. Court of AppealsFonacier v. Court of Appeals > Right of control over certain > Right of control over certain

propertiesproperties

Free Exercise Clause and Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause Establishment Clause

The case survey in The case survey in EstradaEstrada demonstrated two main standards demonstrated two main standards used by the court in deciding used by the court in deciding religious clause cases:religious clause cases:

1) Strict Neutrality 1) Strict Neutrality

2) Benevolent Neutrality2) Benevolent Neutrality

Strict Neutrality Strict Neutrality vs. Benevolent Neutrality vs. Benevolent Neutrality

STRICT NEUTRALITYSTRICT NEUTRALITY Otherwise known as separation, strict Otherwise known as separation, strict

or tameor tame The weight of current authority, The weight of current authority,

judicial and in terms of sheer volume, judicial and in terms of sheer volume, appears to lie with the separationistsappears to lie with the separationists

Protects the principle of church-state Protects the principle of church-state separation with a rigid reading of the separation with a rigid reading of the principle principle

Strict Neutrality Strict Neutrality vs. Benevolent Neutralityvs. Benevolent Neutrality

BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY Protects religious realities, tradition and Protects religious realities, tradition and

established practice with a flexible reading established practice with a flexible reading of the principleof the principle

Suggesting a preference for Suggesting a preference for accommodating over inhibiting religionaccommodating over inhibiting religion

Congruent with the sociological Congruent with the sociological proposition that religion serves a function proposition that religion serves a function essential to the survival of society itselfessential to the survival of society itself

Thus, there is no human society Thus, there is no human society without one or more ways of without one or more ways of performing the essential function of performing the essential function of religionreligion

Benevolent NeutralityBenevolent Neutrality

Philippine jurisdiction adopts the Philippine jurisdiction adopts the benevolent neutrality approachbenevolent neutrality approach

Constitutional history and Constitutional history and interpretation indubitably show interpretation indubitably show benevolent neutrality as the benevolent neutrality as the launching pad from which the Court launching pad from which the Court should take off in interpreting should take off in interpreting religion clause casesreligion clause cases


This approach is directed in the This approach is directed in the protection of religious liberty protection of religious liberty

not only for a minority, however small, not only for a minority, however small, not only for a majority, however large,not only for a majority, however large,

but for each of us to the greatest but for each of us to the greatest extent possible within flexible extent possible within flexible

constitutional limits.constitutional limits.


The Supreme Court subjected the The Supreme Court subjected the claim of religious freedom to theclaim of religious freedom to the

““Compelling State Interest” TestCompelling State Interest” Test1)1) The first inquiry is whether The first inquiry is whether

respondent's right to religious respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened freedom has been burdened

2)2) The second step is to ascertain The second step is to ascertain respondent's sincerity in her respondent's sincerity in her religious belief religious belief

Re: Estrada vs. EscritorRe: Estrada vs. Escritor Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be

penalized as she has made out a case for penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion.fundamental right to freedom of religion.

The Court recognizes that state interests The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms - must be upheld in order that freedoms - including religious freedom - may be including religious freedom - may be enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, In the absence of as a preferred freedom, In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists, a showing that such state interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.Infinite.


Both criminal and administrative Both criminal and administrative complaints against Soledad complaints against Soledad Escritor were Escritor were DISMISSEDDISMISSED..

EPILOGUEEPILOGUE

The Constitution focuses on the The Constitution focuses on the “family” as the basic autonomous “family” as the basic autonomous social institution, and not on social institution, and not on “marriage” which is merely a statutory “marriage” which is merely a statutory concept. concept.

Similarly, a statutory concept Similarly, a statutory concept cannot prevail over a fundamental cannot prevail over a fundamental right under the Constitution, more right under the Constitution, more particularly the Freedom of Religion. particularly the Freedom of Religion.

how religious freedom can prevail over state authority: the landmark case of estrada v. escritor...

Documents