Case Digest for Estrada vs Escritor Resources found below the page
Consitutional Law 1Full description
a
Estrada vs Ombudsman
inquiries in aid of legislation, Article 6 of the 1987 constitution
Estrada v Sandiganbayan Case Digest
Full description
Crim 1 case digestFull description
Risos-Vidal vs Estrada Digest
Estrada vs Escritor Summary and Discussion
ffffffefqFull description
Case Digest - Political Law
Constitutional Law Case Digest
Virtucio v Alegarbes Digest
Villarico v Sarmiento Digest
DIGESTFull description
PIL digest
Domino v COMELEC_case Digest
digest of Azaola v. Singson for Succession class
digested case consti IFull description
ESTRADAv.ESCRITOR AMNo.P‐02‐1651,August4,2003,June20,2006 FACTS: Escrit Escritor, or, a member member of the Jehov Jehovah’ ah’s s Witnes Witness, s, was charg charged ed for immora immoral l conduc conduct t for for co‐hab co‐habit iting ing with with a man
with withou out t the the bene benefi fit t of a marr marria iage ge, , thei their r rela relati tion onsh ship ip bear bearin ing g a chil child. d. She She secu secure red d a “Dec “Decla lara rati tion on of Pled Pledgi ging ng Faithfulness,”indicatingtheirchurch’sapprovaloftheirunioninaccordancewiththebeliefsoftheJehovah’sWitness. ISSUES: WhetherornotEscritormaybesanctionedinlightoftheFreeExerciseclause. RULING:No.Thestatehastheburden No.Thestatehastheburdenofsatisfying ofsatisfyingthe“compel the“compellingstateint lingstateinterest”te erest”testtojustif sttojustifyanypossiblesanct yanypossiblesanctionto ionto
beimposeduponEscritor.Thistestinvolvesthreesteps: 1) Thecourtsshouldlookintothesincerityofthereligiousbeliefwithoutinquiringintothetruthofthebelief. 2) Thestatehastoestablishthatitspurposesarelegitimateandcompelling. 3) Thestateusedtheleastintrusivemeanspossible. ThecasewasremandedtotheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorsothatthegovernme ThecasewasremandedtotheOfficeoftheCourtAdministr atorsothatthegovernmentwouldhavetheopportunit ntwouldhavetheopportunityto yto demo demons nstr trat ate e the the comp compel elli ling ng stat state e inte intere rest st it seek seeks s to upho uphold ld in oppo opposi sing ng Escr Escrit itor or’s ’s posi positi tion on that that her her conj conjug ugal al arrangementisnotimmoralandpunishableasitcomeswithinthescopeoffreeexerciseprotection. SinceneitherEstrada,EscritornorthegovernmenthasfiledamotionforreconsiderationassailingtheAugust4,2003 ruling,the2003decisionhasattainedfinalityandconstitutesthelawofthecase.Anyattempttoreopenthisruling constitutesacontraventionofelementaryrulesofprocedure.Worse,insofarasitwouldoverturntheparties’rightto rely upontheSupremeCourt’ upontheSupremeCourt’sinterpr sinterpretat etationwhichhaslongattaine ionwhichhaslongattainedfinalit dfinality,it y,it alsorunscounterto alsorunscounterto substanti substantivedue vedue process. InitsJune20,2006ruling,theSupremeCourtheldthat,Escritor’ssincerityisbeyondseriousdoubt.Sheprocuredthe certific certificate ate 10 years after after their their union union began began and not merely merely after after being being implicate implicated. d. The free free exercise exercise of religion religion is a fundamentalrightthatenjoysapreferre fundamentalrightthatenjoysapreferredpositioninthehierarchyofright dpositioninthehierarchyofrights.Thestate’sbroadintere s.Thestate’sbroadinterestinprotectingthe stinprotectingthe institutionsofmarriageandthefamilyisnotacompellinginterestenforcingtheconcubinagechargesagainstEscritor. The Consti Constitut tution ion adhere adheres s to the the benevo benevolen lent t neutr neutrali ality ty approa approach ch that that gives gives room room for accomm accommoda odati tion on of relig religiou ious s exercise exercisesas sas required required bytheFreeExerciseClaus bytheFreeExerciseClause.Evenassumi e.Evenassumingthatther ngthattherewas ewas acompellingstate acompellingstate interest interest,thestate ,thestate failedtoshowevidencethatthemeansthestateadoptedinpursuingthiscompellinginterestistheleastrestrictiveto Escritor’sreligiousfreedom. Hence,Escritor’sconjugalarrangementcannotbepenalizedasshehasmadeoutacaseforexemptionfromthelaw basedonherrighttofreedomofreligion.
