How Religious Freedom can prevail over State Authority:

1
How Religious Freedom can prevail over State
Authority

• The landmark case of
• Estrada v. Escritor
• JUDGE MARIA ELISA S. DIY

2
1987 Philippine Constitution

• Section 5.
• No law shall be made respecting an
  establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
  free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
  enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
  without discrimination or preference, shall
  forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
  required for the exercise of civil or political
  rights.

3
1987 Philippine Constitution

• Section 12.
• The State recognizes the sanctity of family
  life and shall protect and strengthen the family
  as a basic autonomous social institution. It
  shall equally protect the life of the mother and
  the life of the unborn from conception. The
  natural and primary right and duty of parents in
  the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
  the development of moral character shall receive
  the support of the Government.

4
The Family Code of the Philippines

• Article 1.
• Marriage is a special contract of permanent
  union between a man and a woman entered into in
  accordance with law for the establishment of
  conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of
  the family and an inviolable social institution
  whose nature, consequences, and incidents are
  governed by law and not subject to stipulation,
  except that marriage settlements may fix the
  property relations during the marriage within the
  limits provided by this Code.

5
Estrada vs. Escritor

• (A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003 June 22,
  2006)
• Created a glorious impact in the necessary
  balance between State Authority and Freedom of
  Religion
• Foreseen that this precedent shall pave the way
  for stronger emphasis and respect for Religious
  Freedom

6
Re Estrada vs. Escritor

• DECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS
• I, Soledad S. Escritor, do hereby declare that
  I have accepted Luciano D. Quilapio, Jr., as my
  mate in marital relationship that I have done
  all within my ability to obtain legal recognition
  of this relationship by the proper public
  authorities and that it is because of having been
  unable to do so that I therefore make this public
  declaration pledging faithfulness in this marital
  relationship.
• I recognize this relationship as a binding tie
  before 'Jehovah' God and before all persons to be
  held to and honored in full accord with the
  principles of God's Word. I will continue to seek
  the means to obtain legal recognition of this
  relationship by the civil authorities and if at
  any future time a change in circumstances make
  this possible, I promise to legalize this union.
• Signed this 28th day of July 1991.

7
Re Estrada vs. Escritor

• Escritor's partner, Quilapio, executed a similar
  pledge on the same day.
• Both pledges were executed in Atimonan, Quezon
  and signed by three witnesses.
• At the time Escritor executed her pledge, her
  husband was still alive but living with another
  woman.
• Quilapio was likewise married at that time, but
  had been separated in fact from his wife.

8
Re Estrada vs. Escritor

• Issue
• Whether or not respondent should be found
  guilty of the administrative charge of gross and
  immoral conduct.
• Sub-issue
• Whether or not respondent's right to religious
  freedom should carve out an exception from the
  prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for
  which government employees are held
  administratively liable.

9
Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause

• Found in Section 5, Article III of the 1987
  Constitution
• Philippine Jurisprudence Revisited
• 1) Aglipay v. Ruiz
• gt Religion, defined
• 2) Gerona v. Sec. of Education
• gt Interpreting the free exercise clause

10
Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause

• Philippine Jurisprudence Revisited
• 3) American Bible Society v. City of Manila
• gt Religious Speech right to disseminate
  religious information
• 4) Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
• gt Tax imposed on sale of religious materials
• 5) Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union
• gt Establishment Clause

11
Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause

• Tests in determining when religious freedom may
  be validly limited
• Immediate and grave danger to the security and
  welfare of the community and infringement of
  religious freedom only to the smallest extent
  necessary
• Religious exercise may be indirectly burdened by
  a general law which has for its purpose and
  effect the advancement of the states secular
  goals, provided that there is no other means by
  which the state can accomplish this purpose
  without imposing such burden
• The compelling state interest test which grants
  exemptions when general laws conflict with
  religious exercise, unless a compelling state
  interest intervenes

12
Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause

• Philippine Jurisprudence Revisited
• 6) J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing
• gt Freedom of worship in relation to freedom of
  expression, speech, and peaceable assembly
• 7) Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
  Schools
• gt Exemption from the flag ceremony

13
Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause

• Philippine Jurisprudence Revisited
• 8) Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals
• gt The clear and present danger test
• 9) Pamil v. Teleron, et al.
• gt Disqualifying ecclesiastics from
  appointment or election
• 10) Fonacier v. Court of Appeals
• gt Right of control over certain properties

14
Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause

• The case survey in Estrada demonstrated two main
  standards used by the court in deciding religious
  clause cases
• 1) Strict Neutrality
• 2) Benevolent Neutrality

15
Strict Neutrality vs. Benevolent Neutrality

• STRICT NEUTRALITY
• Otherwise known as separation, strict or tame
• The weight of current authority, judicial and in
  terms of sheer volume, appears to lie with the
  separationists
• Protects the principle of church-state separation
  with a rigid reading of the principle

16
Strict Neutrality vs. Benevolent Neutrality

• BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY
• Protects religious realities, tradition and
  established practice with a flexible reading of
  the principle
• Suggesting a preference for accommodating over
  inhibiting religion
• Congruent with the sociological proposition that
  religion serves a function essential to the
  survival of society itself
• Thus, there is no human society without one or
  more ways of performing the essential function of
  religion

17
Benevolent Neutrality

• Philippine jurisdiction adopts the benevolent
  neutrality approach
• Constitutional history and interpretation
  indubitably show benevolent neutrality as the
  launching pad from which the Court should take
  off in interpreting religion clause cases

18
Benevolent Neutrality

• This approach is directed in the protection of
  religious liberty
• not only for a minority, however small,
• not only for a majority, however large,
• but for each of us to the greatest extent
  possible within flexible constitutional limits.

19
Benevolent Neutrality

• The Supreme Court subjected the claim of
  religious freedom to the
• Compelling State Interest Test
• The first inquiry is whether respondent's right
  to religious freedom has been burdened
• The second step is to ascertain respondent's
  sincerity in her religious belief

20
Re Estrada vs. Escritor

• Escritors conjugal arrangement cannot be
  penalized as she has made out a case for
  exemption from the law based on her fundamental
  right to freedom of religion.
• The Court recognizes that state interests must be
  upheld in order that freedoms - including
  religious freedom - may be enjoyed. In the area
  of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, In
  the absence of a showing that such state interest
  exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the
  Infinite.

21
Re Estrada vs. Escritor

• Both criminal and administrative complaints
  against Soledad Escritor were DISMISSED.

22
EPILOGUE

• The Constitution focuses on the family as the
  basic autonomous social institution, and not on
  marriage which is merely a statutory concept.
• Similarly, a statutory concept cannot prevail
  over a fundamental right under the Constitution,
  more particularly the Freedom of Religion.

23
Thank you and Good day!