On the constitutionality of the Anti-VAWC Act

AMIDST THE more controversial and politically charged news of the day, there has been a steady increase of media coverage on cases involving celebrities involved in a special category of cases, more commonly known as “Anti-VAWC” cases or cases of violence against women and children. Anti-VAWC cases are governed by Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262).

What is R.A. 9262?

As described by the Supreme Court, RA 9262 is a piece of “landmark legislation.” It was enacted on March 8, 2004 and became effective on March 27 of the same year. Its full title is “The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004.” R.A. 9262 is a special law that defines acts of violence against women and their children; penalizes such acts; and provides protective measures and remedies. Brought about by the undeniable need for a law to protect women and children from domestic violence, and supported by the advocacy of concerned women’s groups, Congress enacted the said law with the aim of giving women more than a fighting chance in seeking redress in a legal system that was still replete with the patriarchal influence of the past.

R.A. 9262 provides swift temporary remedies and broad permanent ones. Covered by this law are women who are wives or former wives of the offender, those who have or have had a sexual or dating relationship with the offender, and those who have a common child with the offender. Of course, as the title of the law suggests, it also protects the children of these women, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

The coverage of this law is quite expansive. Other than the wife and ex-wife, this law also covers those who, although not married, have had dating relationships. This type of relationship is described in R.A. 9262 as the protected woman and another person being “romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship.” R.A. 9262 expressly excludes, “a casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context cannot be considered as a dating relationship.” Sexual relations is then defined as “a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.”

Violence is broadly defined to include physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence. Physical violence is covered, whether it is actual, attempted, threatened or even just placing the woman in fear of the same. Sexual abuse is covered, and it includes acts ranging from rape to making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks. Psychological abuse could be any act or omission that causes or is likely to cause the mental or emotional suffering of the victim, while economic abuse refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent. All these are remedied and prevented by the issuance of protection orders and may be issued by the court or the Punong Barangay.

Augmenting the provisions of R.A. 9262, is A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the “Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children,” issued by the Supreme Court on Oct. 19, 2004. The said rule lays down the venue and procedure for the filing of petitions for protection orders pursuant to R.A. 9262. It likewise enumerates the reliefs available to the offended party when such protection orders are issued, as well as the duties of court and law enforcement officers in handling VAWC cases.

Despite the clear importance of R.A. 9262, its implementation has been difficult. For one, we belong to a culture that has been always been hesitant in dealing with other people’s domestic issues. For another, there had been problems on information dissemination at the barangay level, where it is needed the most.

Other than difficulties in implementation, the validity of R.A. 9262 has been challenged. In a petition filed before the Supreme Court (SC), the question of the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 was deliberated upon and resolved. The validity of the law was assailed on the grounds of being discriminatory, unjust and violative of the equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution. Said petition was denied by the SC a little less than three months ago, on June 25. In short, the SC upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 9262.

Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, the SC promulgated a decision in the case of Garcia v. Drilon, docketed as G.R. No. 179267, unanimously confirming the validity of R.A. 9262. In said decision, the SC ruled that the law does not violate the guarantee of equal protection of laws because it rests on substantial distinctions. Backed by the recorded intent of the framers of the law, as well as statistics from the Philippine National Police, the decision recognized the historically unequal power relationship between men and women, and that “women are the usual and most likely victims of violence.” It likewise declared that the enactment of R.A. 9262 “aims to address the discrimination brought about by the biases and prejudices against women,” and that the distinct classification being made between women and men is germane to the purpose of the law. The SC affirmed that R.A. 9262, including the power to issue protection orders ex parte, or without notice and hearing to the respondent, did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

As it is, with the clear declaration by the SC, R.A. 9262 is valid and constitutional. This piece of landmark legislation is proof that women and children in this country deserve special protection and their war against violence could be won.

(The author is an Associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices. He can be contacted at 830-8000 or through e-mail at ccalojado@accralaw.com. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.)

source:  Businessworld