Section 14, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. On 27 March 2004, Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act became a law. A landmark legislation that aimed to combat violence against women, which according to 2000-2003 statistics comprised 90% of all forms of abuse committed by the women’s intimate partners [husband; former husband; or any person who has a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has a common child]. The law penalizes all forms of abuse and violence like physical, sexual, psychological and financial [economic abuse]. As a public crime, any person may file a criminal complaint before the police. The law also allows the barangay to issue protection orders to prevent further acts of violence against women and children [VAWC] upon the complaint even by two concerned citizens. The protection order may even oust the husband from their own conjugal home.
A husband of Filipino-Chinese descent questioned the legality of the VAWC law on the issuance of several protection orders that includes his removal from the family home, to stay away from his wife, children and maids and not to harass them or send any letter, card or flowers, to surrender his firearm, to provide support, not to dissipate conjugal assets, to make an accounting on the three companies he managed, to post P5 Million bond to keep the peace, allow his wife to use two cars, to pay the house rental, education and needs of the children and to stop harassing them after the husband filed qualified theft on the maids and the replevin of the cars given to his wife. The court also ordered the Register of Deeds not to allow transfer of any property without the consent of the wife.
The protection given to women was questioned as being anti-male, husband-bashing and a hate-men law, violative of equal protection and due process clauses, and undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials. Is the law constitutional? The issue was answered by our Honorable Supreme Court sitting en banc in Garcia v. RTC 41 Bacolod, et. al., G.R. No. 179267 on 25 June 2013. In this case, Rosalie filed a petition for Permanent Protection Order against Jesus. She also prayed for Temporary Protection Order. The TPO was granted. Rosalie made subsequent motions for reissuance of TPOs since her husband was continuously violating the previous TPOs. The Regional Trial Court Judge Drilon granted the motions. While the case was pending, Jesus filed a Prohibition at the Court of Appeals raising the constitutionality of RA 9262 since based on mere allegations, and practically with no opportunity to respond, the husband is stripped of his family, property, guns, money, children, job, future employment and reputation, all in a matter of seconds, without an inkling of what happened. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. He petitioned to the High Court.
Our Supreme Court ruled that R.A. 9262 is not violative of the equal protection clause because it was based on a valid classification – the unequal power relationship between women and men. The fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. There is no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit.
Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word ‘person’ who has sexual or dating relationship with woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. R.A. 9262 is not vague since it does not intend to make every quarrel between spouses punishable under the law. The law particularly defined the punishable acts. The enumerations in the law were even based from the U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
There is nothing in the definition of VAWC that is vague and ambiguous that will confuse a party in his defense. They are worded with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited, and need not guess at its meaning nor differ in its application. R.A. 9262 is not violative of due process. Protection order is to safeguard the woman from further harm, minimize any disruption in daily life and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of their life. Thus, the court in issuing a TPO ex-parte will not violate due process because time is of the essence in VAWC if further violence is to be prevented and the other party may oppose within five days from receipt of the TPO.
