FACTS: Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of
Las Pinas City. She has been living with Quilapio, a man who is not her
husband, for more than twenty five years and had a son with him as well.
Respondent’s husband died a year before she entered into the judiciary while
Quilapio is still legally married to another woman.
Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent.
According to complainant, respondent should not be allowed to remain employed
therein for it will appear as if the court allows such act.
Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion—the
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace
Society. They allegedly have a ‘Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness’ under the
approval of their congregation. Such a declaration is effective when legal
impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union.
ISSUE: Whether or Not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal
arrangement.
RULING: No. The State could not
penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. The
free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental
rights in our Constitution. As Jefferson put it, it is the most
inalienable and sacred of human rights. The State’s interest in enforcing its
prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in order to be sufficiently
compelling to outweigh a free exercise claim. In the case at bar, the State has
not evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the concubinage or bigamy
charges against respondent or her partner. Thus the State’s interest only
amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced prohibition.
Furthermore, a distinction between public and secular morality and religious
morality should be kept in mind. The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to
public and secular morality.
The Court further states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent
neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as
required by the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality could
allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not
offend compelling state interests. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a
compelling state interest, it has to further demonstrate that the state has
used the least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not
infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state.
Thus the conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an
exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment