Dexter L. Ledesma LLB - I Exercise # 2. Case Analysis: ESTRADA V. ESCRITOR ACTS O T!E CASE
In a sworn letter-complaint, Alejandro Estrada, complainant, wrote to Judge Caoibes Jr. requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent oledad Escritor, court interpreter of !as "i#as, is living with a man not her husband. husband. Judge Caoibes referred referred the letter letter to Escritor Escritor,, who stated stated that $there is no truth as to the veracit% of the allegation& and challenged Estrada, $to appear in the open and prove his allegation in the proper court&. Judge Caoibes set a preliminar% conference and Escritor move for inhibition to avoid bias and suspicion in hearing her case. In the conference, Estrada confirmed that he filed a letter-complaint for $disgraceful and immoral conduct& under the 'evised Administrative Code against Escritor for that his frequent visit in the (all of Justice in !as "i#as learned Escritor is cohabiting with another man not his husband. Escritor testified that when she entered judiciar% in )***, she was alread% a widow since )**+. he admitted admitted that shes shes been living living with !uciano uilapo Jr. Jr. without without the benefit benefit of marriage for / %ears and that the% have a son. Escritor asserted that as a member of the religious sect 0nown as Jehovahs 1itnesses, and having e2ecuted a $3eclaration of "ledging 4aithfulness& 5which allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned b% their spouses to enter into marital relations6 jointl% with uilapo after ten %ears of living together, her conjugal arrangement is in conformit% with her religious beliefs and has the approval of the congregation, therefore not constituting disgraceful and immoral conduct. "ARTIES
"etitioner7 Alejandro Estrada 5Complainant6 "rivate 'espondent7 oledad Escritor
"RIOR "ROCEEDI$S
Jul% ///, '8C 9: 5judge Caoibes6 ;ctober ///. "reliminar% Conference %&d'e Ca(i)es endorsed the complaint to Exec&ti*e %&d'e +an&el B. ernande, Jr., who, in turn, endorsed the same to Court Administrator Alfredo !.
T!EORIES O T!E "ARTIES
8he investigating Judge ac0nowledged the freedom of religion plea of o f Escritor provided from the Art. : ec 9 of "hilippine Consitution - $=o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibitingthe free e2ercise thereof. 8he free e2ercise and enjo%ment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. =o religious test shall be required for the e2ercise of civil or political rights.& 8he investigating judge ac0nowledged $religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled too the highest priorit% and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator 5at p. >/, E<'A!I=A? supra, citing Chief Justice Enrique @. 4ernandos separate opiniion in ?erman vs.
OB%ECTIVES O T!E "ARTIES
8he "etitioner is requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent oledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her husband. 5she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain emplo%ed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act.
;n the otherhand, the 'espondent admitted that she is living with a man but considers him her legal husband. As a member of the religious sect 0nown as the Jehovahs 1itnesses and the 1atch 8ower and
4acts from the cases ?erman v.
;n the other hand, 3icdican v. 4ernan, et al case facts spea0s of the issue on upholding moral conduct for public and court emplo%ees. ISS5ES
). 1hether or not respondent should be found guilt% of the administrative charge of Dgross and immoral conduct. . 1hether or not respondents right to religious freedom should carve out an e2ception from the prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for which government emplo%ees are held administrativel% liable.
!OLDI$S
Escritor cannot be penalied. 8he Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutralit% approach that gives room for accommodation of religious e2ercises as required b% the 4ree E2ercise Clause, provided that it does not offend compelling state interests. 8he ;? must then demonstrate that the state has used the least intrusive means possible so that the free e2ercise clause is not infringed an% more than necessar% to achieve the legitimate goal of the state. In this case, with no iota of evidence offered, the records are bereft of even a feeble attempt to show that the state adopted the least intrusive means. 1ith the olicitor ?eneral utterl% failing to prove this element of the test, and under these distinct circumstances, Escritor cannot be penalied.
RATIO DECIDEDI
hould the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected b% the 4ree E2ercise Clause, the Courts action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. 8he court cannot therefore simpl% ta0e a passing loo0 at respondents claim of religious freedom, but must instead appl% the Dcompelling state interestD test. 8he government must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunit% to discharge its burden of demonstrating the states compelling interest which can override respondents religious belief and practice. 8o repeat, this is a case of first impression where we are appl%ing the Dcompelling state interestD test in a case involving purel% religious conduct. 8he careful application of the test is indispensable as how we will decide the case will ma0e a decisive difference in the life of the respondent who stands not onl% before the Court but before her Jehovah ?od.
DIS"OSITIO
I= IE1 1(E'E;4, the case is 'E@A=3E3 to the ;ffice of the Court Administrator. 8he olicitor ?eneral is ordered to intervene in the case where it will be given the opportunit% 5a6 to e2amine the sincerit% and centralit% of respondents claimed religious belief and practiceF 5b6 to present evidence on the states Dcompelling interestD to override respondents religious belief and practiceF and 5c6 to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondents religious freedom. 8he rehearing should be concluded thirt% 5:/6 da%s from the ;ffice of the Court Administrators receipt of this 3ecision.
