NATURE OF THE RIGHT

JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.

NATURE OF THE RIGHT

Please provide your FULL NAME and BLOCK NO. *

1. In the first case of Estrada vs. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1652, August 4, 2003) , why did the Court not resolve the issue of the respondent's claim on her right to religious freedom which should be carved out as an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for which government employees are held administratively liable? *

5 points

A. Because the Philippine Supreme Court has adopted a posture of not invalidating a law offensive to religious freedom, but carving out an exception or upholding an exception to accommodate religious exercise where it is justified

B. Because Estrada has no legal standing to file a complaint.

C. Because the Supreme Court resolved to remand the case in order for the government to be given the opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing Estrada’s stance.

D. Because non-establishment calls for government neutrality in religious matters to uphold voluntarism and avoid breeding interfaith dissension.

2. In the case of Estrada vs. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006), what should be demonstrated by the government in order to uphold in opposing the respondent’s stance that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection. *

5 points

A. Religious institutions' interest

B. Compelling state interest it seeks to uphold

C. Wall of Separation

D. Strict neutrality showing the Court’s tendency to press relentlessly towards a more secular society

Submit

Clear form

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

Does this form look suspicious? Report

Forms