68.

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR

(492 SCRA 1)

In a sworn-letter complaint dated July 27, 2000, complainant Alejandro Estrada

requested Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., presiding judge of Branch 253, Regional Trial Court of
Las Pias City, for an investigation of respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said
court, for living with a man not her husband, and having borne a child within this live-in
arrangement. Estrada believes that Escritor 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.
FACTS:
Soledad Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999, in the Regional Trial Court of Las
Pias. She has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. ( a man who is not her husband) for
more than twenty years and had a son with him as well. Escritors husband died a year
before she entered the Judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman.
DEFENSE:
Escritor claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion The
Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Trace Society. They have a Declaration
of Pledging Faithfulness under the approval of their conjugation. Such declaration is
effective when legal impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union.
ISSUE: Whether or not the State could penalize Escritor for such conjugal arrangement.
RULING:
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 free
exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our
constitution.)
The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms
including religious freedommay 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 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.