CASE DIGEST : Estrada Vs Escritor

A.M. No. P-02-1651 June 22, 2006 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-1021-P) ALEJANDRO
ESTRADA, Complainant, vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent.

FACTS : Complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an
investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, is living with a man not her
husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. Estrada is not personally related
either to Escritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the charge against Escritor as he believes that she
is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to
remain employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Respondent Escritor testified
that when she entered the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her husband having died in 1998.
She admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for twenty
years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah's Witnesses
and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their
religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness," insofar as the congregation is concerned, there is nothing immoral about the
conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they remain members in good standing in the
congregation.

ISSUE : Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of "gross and
immoral conduct."

HELD : The two streams of jurisprudence - separationist or accommodationist - are anchored on a

different reading of the "wall of separation." Separationist - This approach erects an absolute barrier to
formal interdependence of religion and state. Religious institutions could not receive aid, whether direct or
indirect, from the state. Nor could the state adjust its secular programs to alleviate burdens the programs
placed on believers. the strict neutrality or separationist view is largely used by the Court, showing the
Courts tendency to press relentlessly towards a more secular society Accommodationist - Benevolent
neutrality thus recognizes that religion plays an important role in the public life of the United States as
shown by many traditional government practices which An accommodationist holds that it is good public
policy, and sometimes constitutionally required, for the state to make conscious and deliberate efforts to
avoid interference with religious freedom. On the other hand, the strict neutrality adherent believes that it
is good public policy, and also constitutionally required, for the government to avoid religion-specific policy
even at the cost of inhibiting religious exercise First, the accommodationist interpretation is most
consistent with the language of the First Amendment. Second, the accommodationist position best
achieves the purposes of the First Amendment. Third, the accommodationist interpretation is particularly
necessary to protect adherents of minority religions from the inevitable effects of majoritarianism, which
include ignorance and indifference and overt hostility to the minority Fourth, the accommodationist
position is practical as it is a commonsensical way to deal with the various needs and beliefs of different
faiths in a pluralistic nation. The "compelling state interest" test is proper where conduct is involved for the
whole gamut of human conduct has different effects on the states interests: some effects may be
immediate and short-term while others delayed and far-reaching. A test that would protect the interests of
the state in preventing a substantive evil, whether immediate or delayed, is therefore necessary In
applying the test, the first inquiry is whether respondents right to religious freedom has been burdened.
There is no doubt that choosing between keeping her employment and abandoning her religious belief
and practice and family on the one hand, and giving up her employment and keeping her religious
practice and family on the other hand, puts a burden on her free exercise of religion The second step is to
ascertain respondents sincerity in her religious belief. Respondent appears to be sincere in her religious
belief and practice and is not merely using the "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" to avoid punishment
for immorality. She did not secure the Declaration only after entering the judiciary where the moral
standards are strict and defined, much less only after an administrative case for immorality was filed
against herIndeed, it is inappropriate for the complainant, a private person, to present evidence on the
compelling interest of the state. The burden of evidence should be discharged by the proper agency of
the government which is the Office of the Solicitor General. To properly settle the issue in the case at bar,
the government should be given the opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to
uphold in opposing the respondents stance that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable
as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection.