Presentation on theme: "How Religious Freedom can prevail over State Authority:"— Presentation transcript:
1How Religious Freedom can prevail over State Authority: The landmark case ofEstrada v. EscritorJUDGE MARIA ELISA S. DIY
21987 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.
31987 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.
4The 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.
5Estrada vs. Escritor(A.M. No. P August 4, 2003 & June 22, 2006)Created a glorious impact in the necessary balance between State Authority and Freedom of ReligionForeseen that this precedent shall pave the way for stronger emphasis and respect for Religious Freedom
6Re: Estrada vs. Escritor DECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESSI, 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.
7Re: 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.
8Re: 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.
9Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause Found in Section 5, Article III of the 1987 ConstitutionPhilippine Jurisprudence Revisited1) Aglipay v. Ruiz> Religion, defined2) Gerona v. Sec. of Education> Interpreting the free exercise clause
10Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause Philippine Jurisprudence Revisited3) American Bible Society v. City of Manila> Religious Speech; right to disseminate religious information4) Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance> Tax imposed on sale of religious materials5) Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union> Establishment Clause
11Free 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 state’s secular goals, provided that there is no other means by which the state can accomplish this purpose without imposing such burdenThe “compelling state interest” test which grants exemptions when general laws conflict with religious exercise, unless a compelling state interest intervenes
12Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause Philippine Jurisprudence Revisited6) J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing> Freedom of worship in relation to freedom of expression, speech, and peaceable assembly7) Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools> Exemption from the flag ceremony
13Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause Philippine Jurisprudence Revisited8) Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals> The “clear and present danger” test9) Pamil v. Teleron, et al.> Disqualifying ecclesiastics from appointment or election10) Fonacier v. Court of Appeals> Right of control over certain properties
14Free 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 Neutrality2) Benevolent Neutrality
15Strict Neutrality vs. Benevolent Neutrality Otherwise known as separation, strict or tameThe weight of current authority, judicial and in terms of sheer volume, appears to lie with the separationistsProtects the principle of church-state separation with a rigid reading of the principle
16Strict Neutrality vs. Benevolent Neutrality Protects religious realities, tradition and established practice with a flexible reading of the principleSuggesting a preference for accommodating over inhibiting religionCongruent with the sociological proposition that religion serves a function essential to the survival of society itselfThus, there is no human society without one or more ways of performing the essential function of religion
17Benevolent Neutrality Philippine jurisdiction adopts the benevolent neutrality approachConstitutional history and interpretation indubitably show benevolent neutrality as the launching pad from which the Court should take off in interpreting religion clause cases
18Benevolent Neutrality This approach is directed in the protection of religious libertynot 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.
19Benevolent Neutrality The Supreme Court subjected the claim of religious freedom to the“Compelling State Interest” TestThe first inquiry is whether respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdenedThe second step is to ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief
20Re: Estrada vs. Escritor Escritor’s 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.
21Re: Estrada vs. Escritor Both criminal and administrative complaints against Soledad Escritor were DISMISSED.
22The 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.EPILOGUE