Uanan, Claudine S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Atty. Ruben S.

Ayson
1A- JD Wed 7-10 PM

In Re: Supreme Courts Decision in the case of Estrada v. Escritor

At the outset of the decision penned by Justice Puno, though the issue was quite sensitive
because of the diversity of denomination, I certainly would concur to it.

The decision had discussed the history of times when the rules of Hammurabi were
regarded also as the words of divinity to the time when the Religion Clauses were conceptualized
in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.

The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for cause of Conscience, discussed in a Conference

between Truth and Peace, he articulated the philosophical basis for his argument of religious
liberty. To him, religious freedom and separation of church and state did not constitute two but
only one principle. Religious persecution is wrong because it confounds the Civil and Religious
and because States . . . are proved essentially Civil. The power of true discerning the true fear of
God is not one of the powers that the people have transferred to Civil Authority.1

The non- establishment clause was, I believed, properly applied in this case. The issue in
this case was a clear cut to the interpretation of the free exercise clause embodied in the
constitution which is a right to freely exercise ones religion. Freedom of worship, alongside with
freedom of expression and speech and peaceable assembly along with the other intellectual
freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly
stressed that on the judiciary even more so than on the other departments rests the grave and
delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal
formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitously termed
by Justice Holmes as the sovereign prerogative of judgment. Nonetheless, the presumption
must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as they
do precedence and primacy. 2 It has been said that the religion clauses of the Constitution are all
designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as
his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent
with the liberty of others and with the common good.

Furthermore, the issue faced our judiciary was not one that interposes a compelling state
interest. Therefore, passing upon a decision adverse to the defendant would be an encroachment
to her constitutional right.

1 Williams, Roger. The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for cause of Conscience. 1644. As cited in Estrada v. Escritor,
A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003.
2 Justice Teehankee as cited in the decision penned by J.B.L. Reyes, 125 SCRA at pp. 569-570