FILIPINOS can enter into a “live-in” relationship if this is allowed by their religions, a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court -- concurred in by nine of the 15 justices -- declared yesterday.
Dissenting justices led by Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban warned that the ruling could open the floodgates to people who would use religion as an excuse to enter into illegal and immoral conjugal unions.
“The majority opinion will make every religion a separate republic, making religion a haven for criminal conduct that otherwise would be punishable under the laws of the land. Today concubinage, tomorrow bigamy, will enjoy protection from criminal sanction under the new doctrine foisted by the majority opinion,” said Associate Justice Antonio Carpio in an 18-page dissenting opinion.
He cited US jurisprudence in warning that such a sweeping decision would “make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land” and, in effect, “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
“This case is about a religious cover for an obviously criminal act,” the dissenters said.
The issue stemmed from a complaint filed against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter and member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, for committing a “disgraceful and immoral act” by living with Luciano Quilapio Jr. sans marriage and having a child by him.
Immoral act
The complaint was filed on July 27, 2000, by Alejandro Estrada in a Las Piñas court, claiming that such a union constituted an “immoral act that tarnished the image of the court.”
In her defense, Escritor argued that their “conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs and has the approval of her congregation,” the high court said in the 63-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno.
In fact, Escritor claimed that after 10 years in such a conjugal union, she and her husband executed on July 28, 1991, a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness,” which “allows members of the congregation who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations.”
“The declaration thus makes the resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed,” the court said.
Elders approve union
Escritor said the union was approved by the “elders of the congregation” after confirming that her husband had left her.
In her religion’s eyes, “there is nothing immoral about the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they remain members in good standing in the congregation,” the court said.
The high court upheld Escritor’s right to her conjugal union as it chose to adhere to the “benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause.”
“Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these distinct circumstances, respondent Escritor’s 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 court said.
Religious freedom
“The court recognizes that state interest must be upheld in order that freedoms -- including religious freedom -- may be enjoyed,” the court said.
But in her own separate opinion, Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago sought the suspension of Escritor for six months for her disgraceful conduct in court.
“The exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon court judges and court employees are required to maintain the people’s faith in the court as a dispenser of justice, and whose image is mirrored by their actuations,” she said.
“The high degree of moral uprightness is demanded of employees of the government [and] entails many sacrifices that are peculiar to the civil service,” she added.
Apart from Puno, those who voted for the resolution were Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing, Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, Maria Alicia Austria-Martinez, Adolfo Azcuna, Minita Chico-Nazario, Renato Corona, Dante Tinga and Cancio Garcia.
Apart from Panganiban, Carpio and Ynares-Santiago, those who voted against the resolution were Associate Justices Conchita Carpio Morales and Romeo Callejo. Newly appointed Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. took no part in the discussion.
Philippine Daily Inquirer June 23, 2006
