Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ESCRITOR
AM
No.
P‐02‐1651,
August
4,
2003,
June
20,
2006
FACTS:
Escritor,
a
member
of
the
Jehovah’s
Witness,
was
charged
for
immoral
conduct
for
co‐habiting
with
a
man
without
the
benefit
of
a
marriage,
their
relationship
bearing
a
child.
She
secured
a
“Declaration
of
Pledging
Faithfulness,”
indicating
their
church’s
approval
of
their
union
in
accordance
with
the
beliefs
of
the
Jehovah’s
Witness.
ISSUES:
Whether
or
not
Escritor
may
be
sanctioned
in
light
of
the
Free
Exercise
clause.
RULING:
No.
The
state
has
the
burden
of
satisfying
the
“compelling
state
interest”
test
to
justify
any
possible
sanction
to
be
imposed
upon
Escritor.
This
test
involves
three
steps:
1) The
courts
should
look
into
the
sincerity
of
the
religious
belief
without
inquiring
into
the
truth
of
the
belief.
2) The
state
has
to
establish
that
its
purposes
are
legitimate
and
compelling.
3) The
state
used
the
least
intrusive
means
possible.
The
case
was
remanded
to
the
Office
of
the
Court
Administrator
so
that
the
government
would
have
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
the
compelling
state
interest
it
seeks
to
uphold
in
opposing
Escritor’s
position
that
her
conjugal
arrangement
is
not
immoral
and
punishable
as
it
comes
within
the
scope
of
free
exercise
protection.
Since
neither
Estrada,
Escritor
nor
the
government
has
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
assailing
the
August
4,
2003
ruling,
the
2003
decision
has
attained
finality
and
constitutes
the
law
of
the
case.
Any
attempt
to
reopen
this
ruling
constitutes
a
contravention
of
elementary
rules
of
procedure.
Worse,
insofar
as
it
would
overturn
the
parties’
right
to
rely
upon
the
Supreme
Court’s
interpretation
which
has
long
attained
finality,
it
also
runs
counter
to
substantive
due
process.
In
its
June
20,
2006
ruling,
the
Supreme
Court
held
that,
Escritor’s
sincerity
is
beyond
serious
doubt.
She
procured
the
certificate
10
years
after
their
union
began
and
not
merely
after
being
implicated.
The
free
exercise
of
religion
is
a
fundamental
right
that
enjoys
a
preferred
position
in
the
hierarchy
of
rights.
The
state’s
broad
interest
in
protecting
the
institutions
of
marriage
and
the
family
is
not
a
compelling
interest
enforcing
the
concubinage
charges
against
Escritor.
The
Constitution
adheres
to
the
benevolent
neutrality
approach
that
gives
room
for
accommodation
of
religious
exercises
as
required
by
the
Free
Exercise
Clause.
Even
assuming
that
there
was
a
compelling
state
interest,
the
state
failed
to
show
evidence
that
the
means
the
state
adopted
in
pursuing
this
compelling
interest
is
the
least
restrictive
to
Escritor’s
religious
freedom.
Hence,
Escritor’s
conjugal
arrangement
cannot
be
penalized
as
she
has
made
out
a
case
for
exemption
from
the
law
based
on
her
right
to
freedom
of
religion.