[3]The ruling went on to cite a U.S. Supreme Court decision which had held that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.
[4] Though concurring in the decision, Justice O'Connor dissented strongly from the rationale, arguing that a compelling state interest test should have been applied.
[5] Echoing Justice O'Connor's point from the U.S. case, the ruling in Estrada vs. Escritor went on to quote her as having said that strict scrutiny is appropriate for free exercise challenges because “[t]he compelling interest test reflects the First Amendment’s mandate of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.
[3] The ruling then declared Underlying the compelling state interest test is the notion that free exercise is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it should be subject to strict scrutiny, and summarized a three-part compelling state interest test by quoting Michael W. McConnell as follows: If the plaintiff can show that a law or government practice inhibits the free exercise of his religious beliefs, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law or practice is necessary to the accomplishment of some important (or ‘compelling’) secular objective and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective.
[3]These landmark decisions in Estrada vs. Escritor established that benevolent neutrality-accommodation is the framework by which free exercise cases must be decided in the Philippines.
This amounts to a requirement that any law which conflicts with a violator's sincerely held religious beliefs must pass a strict scrutiny test in order to be enforceable.
In return, the Spanish were permitted to exercise numerous rights to autonomously govern the colonial Catholic Church virtually independent of Roman jurisdiction.
[9] The successful Legazpi conquest of the Philippines in 1565 recognized the power of clergy by bringing along the Augustinian friar, navigator and priest Andrés de Urdaneta, to help control the natives.
[11] However, Church involvement had numerous ill effects, as anti-friar Marcelo H. del Pilar of the late 19th century complains: "... the friars control all the fundamental forces of society in the Philippines.
"[12] In-fighting continued and reached its peak when the Gomburza, a triad of priests composed of Mariano Gómez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, were executed by civil authorities in 1872[13] after being implicated in the failed Cavite Mutiny in that same year.
According to Jesuit historian John Schumacher, Calderón then attacked the position of Apolinario Mabini, who had insisted on the separation of church and state.
Many of the friars left voluntarily, and were replaced by native Filipino priests in the lower ranks and American bishops comprising the episcopacy.
[23] A new constitution was ratified in 1973 which included the separation of church and state clause, signaling a new development in the body of law on religious affairs.
It is noted that Roman Catholic religious and clergy like Christine Tan, R.G.S., a nun, Joaquin Bernas, S.J., and Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani became part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and left their mark on the promulgation of the charter and its numerous provisions on the Church and state.
[29] The CBCP was embroiled in a controversy in 2011 over millions of pesos in donations from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) at the behest of then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
[31] The Muslim population face discrimination, mainly in the area of employment, as well as with regard to profiling on the basis of religion as well as freedom of worship, particularly in prisons where the Catholic majority are favored over religious minorities.