<P> The Supreme Court of the Philippines, ruling in 2003 and 2006 in the landmark case of Estrada vs. Escritor, established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality - accommodation . The 2006 ruling, penned by former Chief Justice Puno, explained benevolent - neutrality in the context of U.S. jurisprudence as follows: </P> <P> Under the benevolent - neutrality theory, the principle underlying the First Amendment is that freedom to carry out one's duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of legislature . Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation . With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances . </P> <P> 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 . Though concurring in the decision, Justice O'Connor dissented strongly from the rationale, arguing that a compelling state interest test should have been applied . </P> <P> 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 . </P>

Separation of church and state in the philippines constitution