Soledad Escritor worked as a court interpreter. She had been living with a man who was not her husband and had even borne a child through the relationship. This led to a complaint. Because she worked in the judiciary, the complainant argued that her conduct tarnished the image of the courts and constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanctions.

Escritor did not deny the relationship. She admitted that she had been living with Luciano Quilapio for many years and that they had a child together. She likewise admitted that they were not legally married. However, she raised a different defense.

Escritor was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to her, their religious congregation recognized a practice known as a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. Under the beliefs of their faith, abandoned spouses who could not legally marry because of existing legal impediments could enter into a relationship approved by their congregation. Such relationship would be considered moral and binding within the faith community. Escritor and Quilapio (the partner) had executed such a declaration and had obtained the approval of their congregation’s elders.

Editor’s Note: Soledad and Luciano were married to other spouses when they started living together. Soledad’s husband died before any formal criminal complaint was filed against her. The Court’s opinion on the matter would be divided, but the majority opinion is presented below.

Do you think this case would end the same way as in our previous article? Was Escritor administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct?

No. The Supreme Court explained that the Constitution protects not only the freedom to believe, but also the free exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs. Because Escritor invoked religious freedom, the Court examined whether the State had a sufficiently compelling interest to punish conduct that her faith regarded as morally acceptable.

The Court emphasized that the Philippines follows a policy of benevolent neutrality toward religion. This means that government should not be hostile to religious beliefs and should accommodate religious practices whenever possible, unless a compelling state interest requires otherwise.

Applying this principle, the Court found that Escritor’s relationship was not a sham designed to evade the law. The evidence showed that her arrangement with Quilapio had been examined and approved by her religious congregation in accordance with its established doctrines and practices. Her beliefs were sincerely held and were central to her faith.

The Court then asked whether the government had demonstrated a compelling interest strong enough to override her religious freedom.

It concluded that the State failed to do so. While the government has legitimate interests in protecting marriage, family life, and the integrity of the judiciary, it did not sufficiently show why disciplining Escritor was necessary to achieve those objectives under the circumstances of her case.

As a result, the Court held that Escritor was entitled to a religious accommodation.

Estrada v. Escritor. A.M. NO. P-02-1651 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I NO. 00-1021-P), June 22, 2006.