Practice question
A public employee seeks an exemption from a disciplinary rule on free-exercise grounds. The record establishes sincere religious belief and a real burden. The State relies only on the rule's generally applicable wording, arguing that an exemption can never be considered because everyone is covered. Under the accommodation framework and test used in Escritor, which response is best?
- General applicability makes religious exercise irrelevant in every case.
- The employee automatically prevails without further inquiry.
- The wording alone does not end the inquiry; the State must justify the burden under the applicable compelling-interest and least-restrictive-means analysis.
- The court must decide which religious doctrine is true.
- The employee must convert to the majority faith.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, section 5, https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006 Resolution, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/am_p-02-1651_2006.html
- Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819 et al., April 8, 2014, religious freedom discussion, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_204819_2014.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.