The document discusses the case of Estrada vs. Escritor regarding a charge of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" against respondent Soledad Escritor. Escritor defended herself on the basis of religious freedom as a Jehovah's Witness. The Supreme Court reviewed religious history and theories of separation of church and state. It determined that Escritor's conjugal arrangement did not sufficiently violate a compelling state interest to override her religious freedom. The Court recognized the need to balance state interests with individual freedoms like religion.
The document discusses the case of Estrada vs. Escritor regarding a charge of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" against respondent Soledad Escritor. Escritor defended herself on the basis of religious freedom as a Jehovah's Witness. The Supreme Court reviewed religious history and theories of separation of church and state. It determined that Escritor's conjugal arrangement did not sufficiently violate a compelling state interest to override her religious freedom. The Court recognized the need to balance state interests with individual freedoms like religion.
The document discusses the case of Estrada vs. Escritor regarding a charge of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" against respondent Soledad Escritor. Escritor defended herself on the basis of religious freedom as a Jehovah's Witness. The Supreme Court reviewed religious history and theories of separation of church and state. It determined that Escritor's conjugal arrangement did not sufficiently violate a compelling state interest to override her religious freedom. The Court recognized the need to balance state interests with individual freedoms like religion.
1.) Who are the parties? Petitioner/ Complainant-> Alejandro Estrada Respondent-> Soledad Escritor
2.) What is the charge of Escritor? Escritor was charged with committing disgraceful and immoral conduct under Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, Section 46 (b) (5) of the Revised Administrative Code
a.) What is her defense? She put up the defense of religious freedom asserting that as a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. --- the action of the state will violate the freedom of religion clause
b.) What are her arguments in support of her defense? Respondent Soledad Escritor along with her partner Luciano Quilapio Jr., signed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness that makes their cohabitation proper.
3.) What is the theory of the state? - The State has a compelling interest to override respondents claimed religious belief and practice, in order to protect marriage and the family as basic social institutions. --- Compelling interest of the state to prevent that kind of arrangement (Escritor) - Philippine Constitution adheres to the principle of benevolent neutrality as regards the freedom of religion.
a.) Arguments in support of the theory of the State? - The Constitution and the Family Code argues that marriage and the family are so crucial to the stability and peace of the nation that the conjugal arrangement embraced in the Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness should not be recognized or given effect, as "it is utterly destructive of the avowed institutions of marriage and the family for it reduces to a mockery these legally exalted and socially significant institutions which in their purity demand respect and dignity." - Under the benevolent neutrality theory principle, accommodations can be had by virtue of a legislative act (permissive accommodation) or through the courts (mandatory accommodation) by invoking the religion clause independently as a source of right. In order to ascertain the conflicting claims of the state and the individual, courts will adopt the compelling state interest test as it did in this case.
4.) Definition: a.) Benevolent Neutrality Theory The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the governments favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance.
- within constitutional limits state accomodates religion to the greatest extent possible w/n constitutional limits - pro minority
b.) Strict Separation and Strict Neutrality The Strict Separationist believes that the Establishment Clause was meant to protect the state from the church, and the states hostility towards religion allows no interaction between the two. According to this Jeffersonian view, an absolute barrier to formal interdependence of religion and state needs to be erected. Religious institutions could not receive aid, whether direct or indirect, from the state. Nor could the state adjust its secular programs placed on believers. Only the complete separation of religion from politics would eliminate the formal influence of religious institutions and provide for a free choice among political views, thus a strict wall of separation is necessary.
The strict neutrality approach, the tamer version of the strict separationist view, is not hostile to religion, but it is strict in holding that religion may not be used as a basis for classification for purposes of governmental action, whether the action confers rights or privileges or imposes duties or obligations. Only secular criteria may be the basis of government action. It does not permit, much less require accommodation of secular programs to religious belief.
- state must be neutral, must not favor, nor take sides to restrict any religion
- QUESTION: if a student does not salute to the flag for their religion prohibits,
Government doesnt really care NEUTRAL. (Strict Neutrality Theory).
a policy may be seemingly be neutral but the effect will be restrictive on some religious groups. Generally: ..Except But the burden ac
c.) Compelling State Interest In constitutional law, a method for determining the constitutionality of a statute that restricts the practice of a fundamental right or distinguishes between people due to a suspect classification. In order for the statute to be valid, there must be a compelling governmental interest that can be furthered only by the law in question. Also called compelling governmental interest test and, in the case of a state statute, the compelling state interest test.
a governmental interest (as in educating children or protecting the public) which is so important that it outweighs individual rights state interest which was not merely any colorable state interest, but must be paramount and compelling to override the free exercise clause
d.) Public Morality vs. Religious Morality
The public morality expressed in the law is necessarily secular for in our constitutional order, the religion clauses prohibit the state from establishing a religion, including the morality it sanctions. Thus, when the law speaks of immorality in the Civil Service Law or immoral in the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, or public morals in the Revised Penal Code, or morals in the New Civil Code, or moral character in the Constitution, the distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, should be kept in mind; Although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests; The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. Whatever pronouncement the Court makes in the case at bar should be understood only in this realm where it has authority. Having distinguished between public and secular morality and religious morality, the more difficult task is determining which immoral acts under this public and secular morality fall under the phrase disgraceful and immoral conduct for which a government employee may be held administratively liable. Only one conduct is in question before this Court, i.e., the conjugal arrangement of a government employee whose partner is legally married to another which Philippine law and jurisprudence consider both immoral and illegal.
While there is no dispute that under settled jurisprudence, respondents conduct constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct, the case at bar involves the defense of religious freedom, therefore none of the cases cited by Mme. Justice Ynares-Santiago apply. There is no jurisprudence in Philippine jurisdiction holding that the defense of religious freedom of a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses under the same circumstances as respondent will not prevail over the laws on adultery, concubinage or some other law. We cannot summarily conclude therefore that her conduct is likewise so odious and barbaric as to be immoral and punishable by law. -- Public Morality- standard defined by statutes -- Religious Morality- standard defined by the institution of the church --- NOTE: You should not judge public morality to a religious morality. It is unfair. ----- positivist theory- should not base on moral standards; state did not judge according to morality
5.) Setting aside stare decisis, do you agree with the Supreme Court?
Yes. The Supreme court in order to review of religious history went Under the legal philosophy by the historical school of jurisprudence and Thomas aquinians views of law as an instituition ordained by god. Sc review of Old World antecedents of the religion clauses, because one cannot understand, much less intelligently criticize the approaches of the courts and the political branches to religious freedom without a deep appreciation of the roots of these controversies in the ancient and medieval world. We delved into the conception of religion from primitive times, when it started out as the state itself, when the authority and power of the state were ascribed to God. Then, religion developed on its own and became superior to the state, its subordinate, and even becoming an engine of state policy. A review of the Old World antecedents of religion shows the movement of establishment of religion as an engine to promote state interests, to the principle of non-establishment to allow the free exercise of religion.
---- Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these distinct circumstances, respondent 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, however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode(destroy) the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.
-- It is certain that not every conscience can be accommodated by all the laws of the land; but when general laws conflict with scruples of conscience, exemptions ought to be granted unless some "compelling state interest" intervenes. a claim that such attendance interferes with the practice of a legitimate religious belief, it must appear either that the State does not deny the free exercise of religious belief by its requirement, or that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause. Long before there was general acknowledgement of the need for universal education, the Religion Clauses had specially and firmly fixed the right of free exercise of religious beliefs, and buttressing this fundamental right was an equally firm, even if less explicit, prohibition against the establishment of any religion.