Estrada vs. Escritor A.M.

P-02-1651 August 4, 2003 Facts: In a sworn letter-complaint, Alejandro Estrada, complainant, wrote to Jud ge Caoibes Jr. requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter of Las Pias, is living with a man not her husband. J udge Caoibes referred the letter to Escritor, who stated that there is no truth a s to the veracity of the allegation and challenged Estrada, to appear in the open and prove his allegation in the proper court . Judge Caoibes set a preliminary con ference 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 Revised Administrative Code against Escritor for that his frequent visit in the Hall of Justice in Las Pias learned E scritor is cohabiting with another man not his husband. Escritor testified that when she entered judiciary in 1999, she was already a wi dow since 1998. She admitted that she s been living with Luciano Quilapo Jr. witho ut the benefit of marriage for 20 years and that they have a son. Escritor asser ted that as a member of the religious sect known as Jehovah s Witnesses, and havin g executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness (which allows members of the con gregation who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relatio ns) jointly with Quilapo after ten years of living together, her conjugal arrang ement is in conformity with her religious beliefs and has the approval of the co ngregation, therefore not constituting disgraceful and immoral conduct. Issue: Whether or not Escritor is administratively liable for disgraceful and im moral conduct. Ruling: Escritor cannot be penalized. The Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause, provided that it does not offend compelli ng state interests. The OSG must then demonstrate that the state has used the le ast intrusive means possible so that the free exercise clause is not infringed a ny more than necessary 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 atte mpt to show that the state adopted the least intrusive means. With the Solicitor General utterly failing to prove this element of the test, and under these dist inct circumstances, Escritor cannot be penalized. The Constitution itself mandates the Court to make exemptions in cases involving criminal laws of general application, and under these distinct circumstances, s uch conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for there is a case for exemption f rom the law based on the fundamental right to freedom of religion. In the area o f religious exercise as a preferred freedom, man stands accountable to an author ity higher than the state.