He has issued a sentence in which he defends the right of religious freedom of a minor before the disagreement of his parents about the training he had to receive. The ruling unanimously rejects the appeal for amparo formulated by the father, in which he questioned the previous judicial decisions for which the conflict between the parents about the education that his common child should receive, born in 2016, was resolved, the magistrates have considered that the resolutions questioned by the father were “provided”. The ruling also emphasizes that they respected the religious freedom of the father and that of the youngest son, as well as the “best interest” of the latter.
These resolutions, reasons the organ of guarantees, were issued “in protection of the minor’s religious identity” and, essentially, consisted of granting the mother “the exclusive exercise of parental rights.” This was provided by the power to make the decisions that he deemed more convenient on the “religious formation of the child until he is 12 years tablet and, in short, indoctrinate him in the evangelical faith. ”
The father, in turn, came in demand for amparo to the Constitutional by believing that his own religious freedom was unduly limited. In his resource, he said he was empowered to share and teach his son his religious faith and his values. He added that the recognition of this right implied the possibility of accompanying the child to the Church and reading the Bible. All this to understand that his right to religious freedom gives him to transmit his beliefs to his children, even with the opposition of the other parent. And stressed in his appeal that the judicial decision “prevented his minor son.”
In application of its own jurisprudence – sentences 141/2000, of May 29, and 26/2024, of February 14 -, the Constitutional Court recalls in its ruling – from which magistrate Juan Carlos Campo, of the progressive sector of the Court – that the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant “are closely related to those of the common son of minor, in reference to their own religious freedom, has been speaking. For this reason, “the adequate resolution of the disagreement between parents cannot fail to take into consideration their content or, in case of conflict, the best interests of the child, as defended in the amparo process by the Fiscal Ministry.”
The Court emphasizes that in the case analyzed the behavior of the parent, which is questioned by its excess, has nothing to do with the choice of school. Therefore, the sentence rules out that the “right for children to receive religious and moral formation that agrees with their own convictions” is affected, since by finding said right “their channel of realization in the educational system through the voluntary selection of the teaching center, its content has not been affected”.
On the other hand, the Guarantees Body delimits in its ruling the content of the alleged religious freedom of the father and the minor son. In this sense, he remembers the appellant that, “he has less intensity when projected on third parties to whom it is to participate in his convictions, even doing proselytism.” The Court considers that in these cases “own religious freedom finds its limit in that of third parties that are affected.” This is because “freedom of beliefs finds its most evident limit in that same freedom, in its negative manifestation, that is, in the right of the third party affected not to believe or not support the acts of proselytism of others.”
The Constitutional adds in relation to minors “who are full holders of their fundamental rights”, although due to their age and maturity they lack the ability to act to exercise them. The sentence emphasizes that in these cases “the duty of the public authorities to ensure that both the exercise of parental rights, as well as its protection or defense, be done in the interest of the child, which in case of disagreements implies reconciling the training options of each parent seeking a satisfactory balance between the different conceptions they can maintain”.
The sentence states that the objective of this doctrine is “to protect and guarantee the potential capacity of the child’s child from self -determination in relation to the religious fact once enough maturity reaches.” In short, the Constitutional considers that this interest can be achieved with “the proportionate judicial decisions” that had been adopted in the previous decisions, whose challenge in amparo is dismissed.
