Freedom of Religion v. Compelling State Interest

The legal principle on separation of church and state was enunciated in Section 6, Article II of the 1987 Constitution which states, “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”

This concept was expounded when the clause on free exercise and non-establishment of religion were written under Section 5, Article III of the Bill of Rights, which reads:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

By reading the above provisions, one can only surmise a strict disjunction between the church and state – the citizen’s exercise of freedom of religion and the state’s declaration of policies towards attainment of its secular goals. One may, therefore, argue that a citizen shall follow the mandate of the laws enforced by the state regardless of that person’s religious beliefs. As such, an act which is illegal should be penalized, albeit its legitimacy from a religious perspective.

 
In Estrada v. Escritor, however, the Court ruled that Escritor, a court interpreter could not be dismissed from the government service for disgraceful and immoral conduct of living in with another married man on the basis of a valid exercise of her freedom of religion.
 
A question may thus be asked, “Does the Court in this case legalize live-in relationships between two married persons in the guise of religious freedom?” The answer is definitely “No”.
 
The Court has explained in its ruling that a balance must be reached between a person’s religious freedom and compelling state interest. Recognizing the religious nature of Filipinos and the elevating influence of religion in society, the Philippine constitution’s religion clauses prescribe not a strict, but a benevolent neutrality.
 
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interest.
 
Hence, the general rule still prevails that the separation of church and state is inviolable. The people should abide by the laws dictated by the state regardless of his religious beliefs. The only exception thus far is the established doctrine in Estrada v. Escritor on the basis of a valid exercise of the Constitutional right on freedom of religion.