Pnb v remigio gr no 78508 march211994

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ir conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. Should X’s right to religious freedom carve out an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for which government employees are held administratively liable? A: Yes. 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 recognizes that State interests must be upheld in order that freedoms – including religious freedom – may be enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, POLITICAL LAW TEAM: ADVISER: ATTY. EDWIN REY SANDOVAL; SUBJECT HEAD: RACHEL MARIE L. FELICES; ASST. SUBJECT HEADS: WIVINO E. BRACERO II & HERAZEUS CHRISTINE Y. UY; MEMBERS: LAWRENCE PAULO H. AQUINO, LEANDRO RODEL V. ATIENZA, MARINETH EASTER AN D. AYOS, CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L. VILLAMOR. BILL OF RIGHTS however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the State, and so the State interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the State that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such State interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite (Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P‐02‐1651, June 22, 2006). Q: "X" is serving his prison sentence in Muntinlupa. He belongs to a religious sect that prohibits the eating of meat. He asked the Director of Prisons that he be served with meatless diet. The Director refused and "X" sued the Director for damages for violating his religious freedom. Decide. A: Yes. The Director of Prison is liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code for violating the relig...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/12/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online