ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, petitioner v. SOLEDAD S.

ESCRITOR, respondent

A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

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.

Held:

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.

RUBI VS PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO (1919)

9 Dec 2017

[ 39 Phil 660; G.R. No. L-14078; March 7, 1919] Constitutional Law| Right to Liberty| Bill of Rights|

FACTS:

Rubi and other Manguianes residing in the Province of Mindoro alleged that they were being illegally
deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions were said
to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one of their fellow
tribe, Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for
running away from the reservation.

Manguianes, as Non-Christian tribe, were considered as very low in culture, have shown no desire for
community life and have not progressed sufficiently in civilization. That the purpose of containing them
in a reservation, as stated by the Solicitor General, is for their advancement, education, and to introduce
civilized custom among them.

The order was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, which reads as
follow:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. — With the prior
approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian
inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and
order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be
selected by him an approved by the provincial board.
Hence, the validity of Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code is being questioned.

ISSUE:

Whether Manguianes are being deprived of their liberty.

HELD:

Civil Liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized
community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others. The right to Liberty
guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary
personal restraint or servitude. In general, it may be said that Liberty means the opportunity to do those
things which are ordinarily done by free men.

However, Liberty is not a license. Liberty is regulated by law. Implied in the term is restraint by law for
the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general
well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases. Every man must renounce unbridled license. The right
of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good.

The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was neither
discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among other things: “. . . one cannot hold that the liberty
of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered.
They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that
due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal
protection of the laws, there exists a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the
regular methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.”

Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

Constitutional Law : Article VI, Sec. 1(Legislative Power; Non-Delegation)

G.R. No. L-14078; March 7, 1919; 39 Phil 660

FACTS:

The case is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of
Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial
officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at
Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the
provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away from the reservation.

The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in
question to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the
provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with
section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior
as required by said action.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. — With the prior
approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian
inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and
order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be
selected by him an approved by the provincial board.

Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:

Does section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative
power by the Philippine Legislature to a provincial official and a department head, therefore making it
unconstitutional?

HELD:

No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro, to be
exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board.

In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the distinction is between the
delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the
law. The first cannot be done; to the later no valid objection can be made. Discretion may be committed
by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of
executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of
certain acts, final on questions of fact. The growing tendency in the decision is to give prominence to the
"necessity" of the case.

In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely conferred upon the
provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the Department Head, discretionary
authority as to the execution of the law. This is necessary since the provincial governor and the
provincial board, as the official representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge “when such
as course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order”. As officials charged with the
administration of the province and the protection of its inhabitants, they are better fitted to select sites
which have the conditions most favorable for improving the people who have the misfortune of being in
a backward state.

Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative
power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department head