None other than the Constitution grants the freedom of
religion to every citizen of the State. As a constitutional right, the
government respects the discretion of every person in associating himself in
the society where he lives in. In due respect to this right, the judiciary
gives relief to those citizens whose right to freedom of religion has been
infringed by the State.
In Estrada v. Escritor, the Court has upheld the Right to
Freedom of religion. In the case, a
woman’s morality has been challenged because of her relationship with another
man while both of them are still legally married. The petitioners assailed that
their religion granted them a valid marital relationship with respect to their
legal impediments as set by the laws. The Court said that the law recognizes
actions, which are in accordance to religious beliefs and held that the
conjugal agreement between the plaintiffs is valid.
The strict scrutiny test is a test whether the State has
intruded to the right of freedom of religion requires such compelling state
interest in order for the State to have a valid intrusion on the right to
freedom of religion. Even if granted a constitutional safeguard, the right is
not exempted from political processes. As Justice Scalia once said and feared
that if anyone with a religious objection to a law could simply refuse to obey
it and demand an exemption as a constitutional right; the result would be
anarchy. In the Philippines that is a religiously plural society, every
legislation without differentiation of purpose could potentially burden the
religious interests of some faith. The Court provides a relief to clashing
interests and give everyone a chance to be heard so as to protect each
constitutional right and to uphold the laws of the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment