SC upholds legality of anti-violence vs women, children law

Nothing wrong in a law favoring women and children over men as victims of violence and abuse, according to a ruling of the Supreme Court.

Sitting in full court and voting unanimously, the high tribunal upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 in a decision penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

The SC ruling stemmed from a case filed by a wife who on March 23, 2006 requested the issuance of a temporary protection order (TPO) from a Bacolod court, claiming she was being physically and emotionally abused by her husband.

Her request was granted and the court issued the TPO the following day, on March 24, and it was extended in April of the same year. The woman and her husband were married in 2002 and have three children, who are still minors.

The TPO required  the husband to leave their conjugal dwelling, stay away from his wife and her children from a distance of 1,000 meters and to pay full financial support to his wife and children, including house rental, educational and medical expenses.

However, the husband elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, where he contested not only the validity of the TPO issued in favor of his wife, but also the legality of RA 9269, which he said was violative of due process and equal protection clauses provided for in the Constitution.

The CA eventually junked the husband's plea, saying that he failed to raise the constitutional issue in his pleadings before the Bacolod court, or at the earliest possible time. The CA also said it cannot annul the TPO because it would be an "attack" on RA 9262.

The husband further elevated the case to the high court, saying his rights to due process and equal protection were violated. The SC however denied his petition and upheld the constitutionality of the contested law.

"The grounds for nullity must be beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, however, no concrete evidence and convincing arguments were presented by petitioner to warrant a declaration of the unconstitutionality of RA No. 9262, which is an act of Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the co-equal executive department," the high court said.

Also, it said the law does not violate the equal protection clause by favoring women over men as victims of violence and abuse.

"RA No. 9262 is based on a valid classification brought about by the unequal power relationship between men and women and the official statistics on violence against women and children showing that women are the usual and most likely victims of violence," said the SC Public Information Office in a summary of the en banc ruling.

According to the the SC, the law does not violate the due process clause of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, saying that husband was given five days to comment on the TPO that was issued.

"The respondent of a petition for protection order is apprised of the charges imputed to him and afforded an opportunity to present his side. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process," the SC said.

Moreover, the SC said there was no undue delegation of judicial power when a barangay chief issued an order asking husband to stop harming or threatening to harm his wife and children.

"Such function of the Punong Barangay is thus, purely executive in nature," the high court added.

Some 15,104 cases of domestic violence had been reported in 2011, based on latest available data from the Women and Children Protection Center of the Philippine National Police. — LBG, GMA News