PEOPLE vs SANTIAGO No L- 5877 September 28, 1954 Plaintiff and appellee: people of the Phils Defendant and Appellant:

Arturo Mendoza Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Laguna Ponente: Paras, C. J. Issue: Facts: 1) Arturo Mendoza has appealed from a judgment of CFI of Laguna finding him guilty of the crime of bigamy and sentencing him to imprisonment for an indeterminate term of from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years with costs 2) August 5, 1936: married with Jovita de Asis in Marikina rizal 3) May 14, 1941: married again to Olga Lema City of Manila 4) Feb 2, 1943: Jovite de Asis died 5) August 19, 1949: contracted another marriage with CArmencita Panlilio in Calamba, Laguna 6) Last marriage gave rise to his prosecution for and conviction of the crime of bigamy APPELLANT: 1) Marriage with Olga Lema on mAy 14, 1941 is null and voidnon-existent, having been contracted while first marriage is still subsisting 2) Third marriage cannot be the basis for a charge of bigamy because it tool place after death of Jovita de Asis SOLICITOR GENERAL: 1) Even assuming that appellants second marriage to lema is void, he not exempt from criminal liability, in the absence of judicial annulment of said bigamous marriage DECISION OF SC: the appealed judgment is REVERSED and the defendant appellant ACQUITTED with costs de officio REASONS; 1) Marriage law at that time (Act 3613) Sec 29 in force at that timeillegal marriages 2) Second marriage contracted during existence of first marriage w/ jovita de asis 3) Statutory provision given: plainly makes a subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and thus null and voidno judicial decree is necessary to establish invalidity 4) Marriage with Olga lema was contracted on the belief that JOvita de Asis has been absent for seven consecutive years of generally considered as dead so as to render the marriage valid until declared null and void by competent court REYES, DISSENTING: Art 349 of the RPC punishes with prison mayor any person who shall contract a second marriage or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved PEOPLE vs ARAGON No L- 10016 February 28, 1957 Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Philippines Defendant-Appellant: Proceso S. Aragon Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of CFI of Cebu Ponente: Issue: Facts: 1) Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of cebu finding appellant guilty of bigamy 2) Sept 28, 1925, the accused under the Proceso Rosima contracted marriage with a certain Maria Gorrea in the Philippine Independent Church in Cebu 3) Accused under the name of Proceso Aragon contracted a canonical marriage with Maria Faicol on August 27, 1934 in Sta teresita church in Iloilo CIty while first marriage was subsisting 4) Maria Gorrea died in Cebu on August 5, 1939seeing the coast was clear in Cebu accused brought Maria Faicol to Cebu City in 1940 where she worked as a teacher-nurse 5) January 22, 1953 accused sent Maria Faicol to Iloilotreatment for eyesightduring her absence accused contracted third marriage with a certain Jesusa Magsalang on October 3, 1953 in Sibonga Cebu

6) Accused made attempt to deny marriage with maria Faicol, the court however believes that
the attempt is futilesecond marriage was fully established by certificate and testimony of faicol and Eulogio Giroy (witness and sponsor in the wedding) CFI DECISION:held that even in the absence of an express provision in Act No 3613 authorizing the filing of an action for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage ab initio, defendant could not legally contract marriage with Jesusa Maglasang w/o the dissolution of his marriage to Maria Faicol either by death of the latter or by the judicial declaration of nullity of such marriage DECISION OF SC: Judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the defendant-appellant ACQUITTED. With costs de oficio, without prejudice to his prosecution for having contracted the second bigamous marriage REASONS: 1) Action was instituted upon complaint of the second wife (maria Faicol, whose marriage with the appellant was not renewed after the death of first wife and before the third marriage was entered into 2) Hence the last marriage was a valid one and the appellants prosecution for contracting this marriage can not prosper TOLENTINO vs PARAS No L- 43905 May 30, 1983 Petitioner: Serafia G. Tolentino Respondent: Hon Edgardo L. Paras, Maria Clemente and the Local Civil registrar, Bulacan Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari the Order of the Local Civil registrar of Paombong, Bulacan Ponente: melencio-herrera, j. Issue: Facts: 1) Reversal of the courts order dismissing petitioners suit for her declaration ---- as the lawful surviving spouse of deceased Amado Tolentino and the correction of the death certificate of the same 2) Nov 1, 1948: marriage of Amado Tolentino with Maria Clemente (second marriage) 3) July 31, 1943: first marriage with Serafina Tolentino 4) Petitioner charged Amado with bigamy in Crim Case no 2768 (CFI Bulacan) CFI: found him guilty (amado admitting)prison sentenced imposed on him after he has served sentence continued to live with private respondent until his death on July 25, 1974 5) Amado\s death certificate carried the netry: Name of surviving spouseMaria Clemente 6) Special proceedings: Correction of Entrypetitioner sought to correct the name of surviving spouse to Serafia Tolentino 7) LC: Dismissed the petition lack of proper requisites of law and need for more detailed proceeding 8) Petitioner filed case against Local Civil registrar of paombong bulacan for her declaration as the lawful surviving spouse and correction of the death certificate RESPONDENT COURT: dismissed the case. MOOT and ACADEMIC DECISION OF SC: Rule for petitioner: order dated Oct 21, 1975 of the respondent court is hereby set aside and petitioner Serafia G. TOlentino, hereby declared the surviving spouse of the deceased Armando Tolentino. Let the corresponding correction be made in the latters death certificate in the records of the Local Civil registrar of Paombong Bulacan REASONS: 1) For the remedy: ultimate objective is correction of entry (Art 412 of CC and Rule 108 of Rules of Court)she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is lawful surviving spouse of the deceasedlay basis for correction of death cert of Amado 2) Suit is a proper remedy: claim of right is asserted 3) Publication required by the Court beliw a pursuant to Rule 108 of Rules of Court is not absolutely necessary 4) The merits: Amado, convicted of bigamy, sentence furnishes the necessary proof of marital status of petitioner and the deceasedthere is no proof better than admission of accused of the existence of such marriage

5) Second marriage null and void from the beginning and of no force and effectno judicial
decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage of the accused but the petitioner rectification of the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar may be validly made OTHER ISSUES: Regarding the invalidty of Amados second marriage with private respondent and that the entry made in the corresponding local registrar is hereby rendered FALSE it may be corrected

6) Private responden t is not the surviving spouse

WIEGEL vs. SEMPIO-DIY Plaintiff and appellee: people of the Phils Defendant and Appellant: Arturo Mendoza Nature of the Case: Ponente: Issue: Facts:

ATIENZA vs BRILLANTES AM NO, MTJ-92-706 March 29, 1995 Complainant: Lupo lmodiel Atienza Respondent: Judge Francisco F. Brillantes JR MTC, Branch 20, Manila Nature of the Case: Administrative Matter in the SC. Gross Immorality and Impropriety POnente: Quaison, J. Issue: Facts: 1) Complaint alleges that he(Lupo Atienza) has two children with Yolanda De Castro who are living together at No, 34 Galaxy st. Bel Air Subd Makati Metro Manila. He stays in the said house which he purchased in 1987 2) Dec 1991: upon opening door to his bedroom, saw respondent sleeping on his bed 3) He was told by houseboy that respondent had been cohabiting with De Castro 4) Complainant claims that respondent is married to one Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has 5 children (shown in his 1986 and 1991 sworn statement of liabilities and assets) 5) He alleges that respondent caused his arrest on January 13, 1992 after he had heated argument with De castro inside the latters office RESPONDENTs CLAIMS: 1) Complainant was not married to de castro 2) Filing of administrative action was related to complainants claim on the Bel Air residence which was disputed by De Castrodenies he caused comlainants arrestsister of de Castro who callrf the police to arrest him 3) Denies having married to Ongkiko although admits having 5 children with her 4) He said they went through a marriage ceremony in Nueva ecija with town mayor on April 25, 1965nnot valid due to lack of marriage license 5) Upon request of Ongkiko, respondent went through another marriage ceremony w/ her in Manual on June 5, 1965wo marriage license still 6) Ongkiko abandoned respondent 19 years ago, leaving the children to his care and custody as single parent 7) When he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles, CA on dec 4, 1991, believed in all good faith and for all legal intents and purposes that he was single because his first marriage was solemnized w/o a license 8) Claims that ART 40 does not apply to him since first marriage occurred in 1965under old civil code; second marriage took place in 1991 and governed by the FC

DECISION OF SC: respondent is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and with prejudice to reappointment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government including GOCCs. Decision immediately executory. REASONS: 1) Under Family Code, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage before a party thereto can enter into a second marriage 2) Art 40 of FC provides: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for the purpose of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. 3) Art 40 is applicable to all marriages entered into after the effectivity of the FC on August 3, 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage 4) Under Art 258 of the FC said Art is given retroactive effect in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the CC and other laws 5) The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected (reason: as a general rule no vested right may attach to nor arise from procedural laws) 6) Respondent is last person to invoke good faith: made a mockery of this institution of marriage and employed deceit to be able to cohabit with a woman, who begot him five children 7) Passed the bar exams in 1962 and was admitted to the practice of law in 1963he went through two marriage ceremonies with Ongkikobeing a lawyer alreadyknows that marriage license is necessary before one can get marriedgiven opportunity to correct the flaw in the first marriage when he and Ongkiko were married the second time but failed to secure license betrays his sinister motives and bad faith 8) Respondent failed to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the legal profession 9) Deceit employed by respondent existed prior to his appointment as MTC judge, his immoral and illegal act of cohabiting with De Castro began and continued when he was already in the judiciary DOMINGO vs CA GR NO, 104818 Sept 17, 1993 Petitioner: Roberto Domingo Respondents: CA and Delia Soledad Avera (represented by Moises R. Avera) Nature of the Case: petition for review of the decision of CA Ponente: Romero, J. Issue: 1) Whether or not petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessaryif affirmative, whether same should be filed for purposes of remarriage? 2) WON SP NO 1989-J is the proper remedy of private respondent to recover certain real and personal properties allegedly belonging to her exclusively Facts: 1) Seeks the reversal of respondents court ruling finding no grave abuse of discretion in the lower courts order denying petitioners motion to dismiss the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property 2) May 29, 1991: petition filed by Delia Soledad Domingo petition RTC, Pasig petition for Declaration of nullity of marriage and Separation of Property 3) November 29, 1976: married at the YMCA Youth Center Bldg, Carmona cavite, unknown to her he had a previous marriage with one Ermelina dela Paz on April 25, 1969 (marriage still valid and existing) 4) 1983: ermelina sued them for bigamy 5) January 23, 1979 present:she works in Saudi Arabia and comes home to Phil during a onemonth annual vacation 6) Since 1983 to present: Roberto was unemployed and dependent on her 7) Delia purchased real and personal properties with total amount of ) 350,000 which are under possession and admin of Roberto 8) June 1989: discovered ythat he is cohabiting with another woman and siposing some of her properties w/o her knowledge and consent 9) Appointed her brother Moises Avera (attorney-in-fact) to take care of her properties, but Roberto refused to turn over possession 10) Roberto is not a

11) uthorized to administer her propertiesmarriage null and void 12) Petition prayed for TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining Roberto from exercising any act of administration and ownership over said properties 13) Marriage be declared null and void and of no force or effect 14) Delia be declared the sole and exclusive owner of all properties acquired of the tome of their void marriage and such properties be placed under the proper management and administration of the attorney-in fact PETITIONER: 1) Filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground that petition stated no cause of action 2) Marriage being null and void ab initiopetition for declaration no longer necessary 3) Private respondent has no property which is in his possession RTC: Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria (August 20, 1991) issued an order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of merit No need for declaration since second marriage contracted after first marriage is illegalno need of judicial declaration to establish the invalidity of the marriage (YAP CASE) With respect to right of second wife, court observed that although marriage can be presumed to be void ab initio still there is need for judicial declaration of its nullity (Vda de Consuegra v GSIS) Contention that no property is in his possessionstill left to be proven after trial of merits 15) Petition for reconsideration was filed stressing erroneous application of VDa de Consuegra v GSIS and the absence of justiciable controversy as to nullity of marriage 16) Sept 11, 1991: motion for reconsideration denied by Judge Austriaasking petitioner to file answer within 15 days after receipt 17) Instead of answeringfiled special civil action of certiorari and mandamus on the ground that the LC acted w/grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss February 7, 1992: CA: dismissed the petition Yap vs Ca and Consuegra v GSIS has no relevance on this casedeal with successional rights of second wifecase at bar, deals with separation of property with declaration of nullity of marriage ARTs 48, 50 and 52 of the FC: held that private respondents prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage may be raised together with other incidents of their marriage such as the separation of their properties Court has jurisdictionalleged error in refusing grant the motion dismissremedy: file an answer, proceed with trial and in case of an adverse decisionappeal Motion for reconsideration denied for lack of merit This petition ANSWERS TO ISSUE # 1 1) Petitioner invokes rules in people vs. Aragon and People vs. Mendozajudicial declaration is not necessaryrequired only for purposes of remarriage 2) Private respondent: insists on necessity of declaration not for purposes of remarriage but for separation and distribution of property 3) Bigamous marriagevoid from very beginning 4) Tolentino vs Parasno judicial decree necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage (second marriage during lifetime of first spouse is null and void from beginning) 5) Wiegel vs Sempio-Diy: such a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration os such facts and for all legal intents and purposes she woulb regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with Karl Wiegel 6) FC: Settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudenceA declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as cause of action or a ground for defense 7) Code took the position that parties to a marriage should NOT be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such is the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed t marry again (Art 40) 8) In fact, the requirement for a declaration of an absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy 9) Final judgment declaring the previous marriage void may also be invoked for other purposes: action for liquidation, partition,distribution and separation of properties as well action for

custody and support of their common children and the delivery of the latters presumptive legitimes ISSUE # 2; 1) Petitioner suggests that private respondent filed an ordinary civil action for the recovery of the properties alleged to have been acquired during their union 2) CA disregarded this argument and concluded that the prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be raised together with other incident of their marriage such as separation of their properties 3) Prayer for separation of properties would be simply one of the necessary consequences of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage- need for civil action to be filed (baseless) 4) Accordingly the respondent court committed no reversible error in finding that the lower court committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners motion to dismiss SP NO, 1989J DECISION OF SC: Instant petition is hereby DENIED. Decision of CA dated Feb 7, 1992 and resolution dated March 20, 1992 are AFFIRMED. ESTRADA vs ESCRITOR AM No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003 Complainant: Alejandro Estrada Respondent: Soledad Escritor Nature of the Case:Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. Immorality Ponente: Puno, J. Issue: Facts: 1) July 27, 2000: complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibe Jr. presiding judge of Br 253 RTC of Las PInas city requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court is living with a man not her husband 2) They allegedly have a child of 18 to 20 years old 3) He filed a charge against Escritor as he believes that she is omitting an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as It might appear that the court condones her act 4) Judge Caoibes referred the letter to Escritot who stated that there is no truth as to the veracity of the allegation and challeneged Estrada to appear in the open and prove his allegation in the proper forum 5) Judge caoibes set a preliminary conference on Oct 12, 2000 6) Escritor moved for the inhibition of judge from hearing her case to avoid suspicion and bias a she previously filed an administrative case against him and case is still pending In the OCA but petition was denied 7) Escritor testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999 she was already a widow, her husband having died in 1998 8) She admitted she has been living with Luciano Quilapio Jr. without the benefit of marriage for 20 years and that they have a son 9) But as a member of a religious sect known as Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs 10) In fact after 10 years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a Declaration of Pledging Faithulness 11) Quilapio executed the same declaration 12) Both pledges signed by three witnesses 13) When pledge was executed her husband was still alive but living with another woman Quilapio was also married at that time but had been separated in fact with wife 14) Judge Caoibes endorsed the complaint to Exec Judge manuel B. Fernandez, Jr. who in turn, endorsed the same to Court administrator Alfredo Benepayo 15) July 17, 2001, the court upon recommendation of Acting Court Admin Zenaida Elepano. Directed Escritor to comment on the charge against her 16) In her comment, Escritor reiterated her religious congregations approval of her conjugal arranagement with Quilapio

17)

Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock recommended that the case be referred to Exec Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda RTC Br 255 of Las Pinas City for investigation, report and recommendation 18) In the investigation Escritor claimed the samecongregation allows her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio and it does not consider it immoral 19) Escritor started living with Quilapio 20 years ago when her husband was still alive but living with another woman. She met this woman who confirmed to her that she was living with her husband 20) Gregorio Salazar, a member of jehovahs witness since 1985 testifiedas presiding minister since 1991explained the import of and procedure for executing a declaration of Pledging Faithfulness 21) EScritor and Quilapio transferred to Salazars congregation (almanza congregation in Las PInas in May 2001)congregation assumed thay the personal circumstances of the couple had been considered by the atimonan Congregation when they executed their declarations 22) Declaration are recorded in the Watch Tower central OfficeMaintaining mArriage in Honor Before God and Men 23) Declration requires the approval of the elders of Jehovahs Witness congregation and is binding within the Congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed 24) Jehovah requires that at the time of the declarations are executed, the couple cannot secure the civil authorities approval of the marital relationship because of legal impediments 25) Scriptural basis: Matt 5:32The Marital status of the declarants and their respective spouses commission of adultery, before the declarations are executed 26) In this case, the Excritor, it is presumed that the Atimonian congregation conducted an investigation on her marital status before the declaration was approved and the declaration is valid everywhere 27) Although in 1998 Escritor was widowed, therebylifitng the legal impediment to marry on her, her mate is still not capacitated to remarrythus their declaration remains valid 28) Once the legal impediments for both are lifted, the couple can already register their marriage with the civil authorities and the validity of the declarations ceases 29) The elders in the congregations can then solemnize marriage as authorized by Philippine Law 30) In so far as the congregation is concerned, there is nothing immoral about the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they remain members in good standing in the congregation ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION (ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS): whether or not the relationship between respondent Escritor and Quilapio is valid and binding in their own religious congregation, the Jehovahs Witnesses It will also include the effect of relationship to Escritors administrative liability must likewise be determined Assuming that the declaration is valid and binding in her congregation, it is binding only to her co-members in the congregation and serves only the internal purpose of displaying to rest of the congregation that she and her mate are respectable and morally upright couple. Their religious belief and practice, however cannot override the norms of conduct required by law for government employeesto rule otherwise would create a dangerous precedent as those who cannot legalize their live in relationship can simply join the Jehovahs Witness congregation and use their religion as a defense against legal liability JUDGE MACEDA: a) Found Escritors factual allegations credible as they were supported by testimonial and documentary evidence b) The more relevant question is: WON to exact from respondent Escritor, a member of Jehovahs Witness the strict moral standards of the Catholic faith in determining her administrative responsibility in the case at bar? c) Acknowledged that religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator and thereby recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Escritor OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR: (through Deputy CA) a) Concurred with the factual findings of Judge MAceda but departed from his recommendation to dismiss the complaint

b) DCA Lock stressed that although Escritor had become capacitated to marry by the time she
joined the judiciary as her husband had died a year beforeit is her relationship with a married man, voluntarily carried on, that respondent may still be subject to disciplinary action c) Court personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the court of justice d) Lock found Escritors defense of freedom of religion unavailing to warrant dismissal of the charge of immoralityHe recommended that respondent be found guilty of immorality and that she be penalized with suspension of six months and one day w/o pay w/ a warning that a repetition of a similar act will be dealt with more severely in accordance with the CS Rules ISSUE: WON respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charges of gross and immoral conduct SUB-ISSUE: WON respondents right to religious freedom should carve out an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for which government employees are held administratively liable APPLICABLE LAWS: Charge with committing gross and immoral conductBook V, Title I, Chapter VI Sec 46 (b) (5) of the Revised Administrative CodeDisciplineground for suspension or dismissal disgraceful and immoral conduct RESPONDENT: invokes the religious beliefs and practices and moral standards of her religion, the jehovahs Witnesses in asserting her conjugal arrangement with a man not her legal husband does not constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct for which she should be held administratively liableArt III, Section 5 of the Constitution APPLICATION OF RELIGION CLAUSES TO THE CASE AT BAR A. Religion Clause and Morality Court has ruled that government employees engaged in illicit relations are guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for which he/she may be held administratively liable Respondent does not claim that there is error in the settled jurisprudence that an illicit relationship constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct for which a governemtn employee is held liable Nor is there an allegation that the norms of morality w/ respect to illicit relaations have shifted toward leniency from the time these precedent cases were decidedno reason to deviate from previous rulings that such illicit relations are disgraceful and immoral - Distinguishing factor: respondent invokes religious freedom since her relgion, JW has after thorough investigation, allowed her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio based on churchs beliefs and practices This distinguishing factor compels the Court to apply the religious clauses to the case at bar EXPLANATIONS: a) A common morality is part of a bondage and the bondage is a part of the price of society; and mankind which needs society, must pay its price (social contract realm- people give up their liberties to the state to allow the state to protect their liberties) b) In a constitutional order, people make a fundamental agreement about the powers of government and their liberties and embody this agreement in a constitution, hence referred to as the fundamental law of the land c) Thus society is justified in taking steps to preserve its morla code by law as it does to preserve its government and other essential institutions d) In the realm of religious exercise, BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY that gives room for accommodation carries out this promise, provided the compelling interests of the state are not eroded for the preservation of the state is necessary to the preservation of religious liberty necessary in a pluralistic society such as the Phils to accommodate those minority religions which are politically powerless e) Morality is generally founded and built upon certain concurrence in the moral opinions of all f) There are certain standards of behavior or moral principles which society requires to be observed and these form the bases of criminal lawtheir breach is an offense not only against the person injured but against society as a whole g) In the case at bar: even if all involved in the misdeed are consenting partiesthe injury done is to the public morals and the public interest in moral order

h) Distinction is not between secular and private morality but between public and secular morality on the one hand and religious morality on the other (Separate opinion) i) Art 19 and 21 of CC j) Government action, including the prescription of immorality as expressed in criminal law concubinage, must have a secular purposegovernment prescribes this conduct because it is detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend upon the existence and progress of human society and not because the conduct is prescribed by beliefs of religion on the other k) 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 limitsthus, although morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling STATE INTERESTS l) Laws of general applicability governing morals should have a secular purpose of directly or indirectly protecting the interests of the state m) Jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality n) TASK: Determining which immoral acts under this public and sectoral morality fall under the phrase disgraceful and immoral conduct for which a government employee may be held administratively liable o) Truth: underneath moral relativism are certain moral absolutes p) For those in the government service, provisions of law and court precedents have to be consideredthere is not dispute that under settled jurisprudence, respondents conduct constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct (problem: religious freedom?) q) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM vs COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST from a benevolent neutrality stancerespondents defense of religious freedom will be unavailing should the government succeed in demonstrating a more compelling state interest THREE QUESTIONS IN THE TEST: 1) In applying the test, the first inquiry is Whether respondents right to religious freedom has been burdened? (keeping employment and abandoning religious belief or abandoning employment nad keeping religious belief?) 2) Ascertain the respondents sincerity in her religious belief respondent appears to be sincere in her religious belief Clear and present danger of a substantive evil, destructive to public morals is a ground for the reasonable regulation of the free exercise of religious profession (Mme, Justice YnaresSantiago: dissenting) She is a practicing member with good standing 3) In any event, even if the court deems sufficient respondents evidence on the sincerity of her religious belief and its centrality in her faith, the case at bar cannot still be decided using the compelling state interest test - OCAs reliance upon this ruling that the state interest it upholds is the preservation of the integrity of the judiciary by maintaining among its ranks a high standard of morality and decencyno compelling interest proven in its memorandum that it should override respondents plea of religious freedom - Burden of evidence of compelling interest is on the stateSOLICITOR GENERAL- government be given opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the respondents stance that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection DECISION OF SC: the Case is REMANDED to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Solicitor General is ordered to intervene in the case where it will be given the opportunity (a) to examine the sincerity and centrality of respondents claimed religious belief and practice; b) to present evidence on the states compelling interest to override respondents religious belief and practice; and c) to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondents religious freedom Rehearsing should be concluded thirty days (30) from the Office of the Court Administrators receipt of this decision

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (Nagpapakitang gilas si Puno eh) Social contract theory by John Locke Free Exercise Clause Belief-action distinction Two-part balancing test Establishment Clause (establishment of religion by State is not allowed) Benevolent Neutralitygives room for accomodation

PEOPLE vs SANTIAGO