DOLINA V.
VALLECERA case can include the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this
GR No. 182367- [December 15, 2010]
DOCTRINE:
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first
establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or
acknowledged. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of
obligation.
FACTS:
In 2008, Cherryl Dolina filed a petition with aprayer for the issuance of a
temporary protection order against Glenn Vallecera before RTC for alleged
woman and child abuse under RA 9262. In the pro forma complaint cherryl
added a prayer for support for their supposed child. She based such prayer
on the latters certificate of live birth which listed Vallecera s employer, to
withhold from his pay such amount of support as the RTC may deem
appropriate.
Vallecera opposed petition and claimed that Dolinas petition was
essentially one for financial support rather than for protection against
woman and child abuses, that he was not the childs father and that the
signature in the birth certificate was not here. He also added that the
petition is a harassment suit intended to for him to acknowledge the child
as his and therefore give financial support.
RTC dismissed petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolinas action for temporary
protection and denied her application for temporary support for her child?
HELD:
Yes.
RATIO:
Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The
object of R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and
safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence.
Although the issuance of a protection order against the respondent in the
assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal support.
In this case neither her or her child lived with Vallecera.
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first
establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or
acknowledged. Since Dolinas demand for support for her son is based on
her claim that he is Valleceras illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to
such support if he had not acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have
proved his relation to him. The childs remedy is to file through her mother
a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition. If filiation is
beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation. In short,
illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but
their filiation must be duly proved.
Dolinas remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against
Vallecera for compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and then
demand support. Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support,
where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.
PEOPLE vs. GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January 15 2004.
People of the Philippines vs. Marivic Genosa
FACTS: This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Genosa, by his wife
Marivic Genosa, appellant herein. During their first year of marriage,
Marivic and Ben lived happily but apparently thereafter, Ben changed and
the couple would always quarrel and sometimes their quarrels became
violent. Appellant testified that every time her husband came home drunk,
he would provoke her and sometimes beat her. Whenever beaten by her
husband, she consulted medical doctors who testified during the trial. On
the night of the killing, appellant and the victim were quarreled and the
victim beat the appellant. However, appellant was able to run to another
room. Appellant admitted having killed the victim with the use of a gun.
The information for parricide against appellant, however, alleged that the
cause of death of the victim was by beating through the use of a lead pipe.
Appellant invoked self defense and defense of her unborn child. After trial,
the Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of parricide with an aggravating circumstance of treachery and
imposed the penalty of death.
On automatic review before the Supreme Court, appellant filed an URGENT
OMNIBUS MOTION praying that the Honorable Court allow (1) the
exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of his
death; (2) the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists
and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she killed her
husband; and finally, (3) the inclusion of the said experts reports in the
records of the case for purposes of the automatic review or, in the
alternative, a partial re-opening of the case a quo to take the testimony of
said psychologists and psychiatrists. The Supreme Court partly granted the
URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION of the appellant. It remanded the case to the
trial court for reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion
on the battered woman syndrome plea. Testimonies of two expert
witnesses on the battered woman syndrome, Dra. Dayan and Dr.
Pajarillo, were presented and admitted by the trial court and subsequently
submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the records.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the battered woman
syndrome as constituting self defense.
2. Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.
Ruling: 1. The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that
she is afflicted with the battered woman syndrome.
A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in
order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for
her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate
relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it
occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a
battered woman.
More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the
so-called cycle of violence, which has three phases: (1) the tension-
building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving
(or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising
from the battered woman syndrome. First, each of the phases of the cycle
of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering
episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final
acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have
produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear of an imminent
harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force
in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must
have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm
to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former
against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the
requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present case,
however, not all of these elements were duly established.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence
supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No
doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant failed to prove
that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through
a similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard
to the third phase of the cycle.
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in
itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner.
Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. Settled in
our jurisprudence, is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense must
face a real threat on ones life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be
imminent and actual, not merely imaginary. Thus, the Revised Penal Code
provides that the following requisites of self-defense must concur: (1)
Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It
presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent
danger thereof -- on the life or safety of a person. In the present case,
however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a
sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her
fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his
violent behavior and escape to their childrens bedroom. During that time,
he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the
imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer
in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety.
The mitigating factors of psychological paralysis and passion and
obfuscation were, however, taken in favor of appellant. It should be
clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological paralysis as well as
passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the same set of facts.
The first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the severity of
the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon appellant. That is, the
repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her psychological
paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her
will power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts.
As to the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation, it has
been held that this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a
result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or
improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
reason. To appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should
concur: (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a
condition of mind; and (2) this act is not far removed from the commission
of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused
might recover her normal equanimity.
2. NO. Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must be
proved as conclusively as the killing itself. Besides, equally axiomatic is the
rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery
cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased
may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression
from the assailant. Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method
of assault adopted by the aggressor must have been consciously and
deliberately chosen for the specific purpose of accomplishing the unlawful
act without risk from any defense that might be put up by the party
attacked.
The appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally
produced passion or obfuscation. The acute battering she suffered that
fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she
was eight (8) months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put
her in the aforesaid emotional and mental state, which overcame her
reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and that of her unborn child.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant for parricide.
However, considering the presence of two (2) mitigating circumstances and
without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty is reduced to six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years 8 months
and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Inasmuch as appellant has
been detained for more than the minimum penalty hereby imposed upon
her, the director of the Bureau of Corrections may immediately RELEASE
her from custody upon due determination that she is eligible for parole,
unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.
NOTE: After this case was decided by the Supreme Court, R.A. 9262,
otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of
2004 was enacted. Sec. 26 of said law provides that "xxx. Victim-survivors
who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability nothwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code.xxx"
Landmark Case: People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981. January 15,
2004 (Digested Case)
People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004
Case Digest / Digested Case Version
A Landmark Case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Story: The Battered Woman Syndrome
The wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years.
She was 8 months pregnant when, one evening, her husband came home
drunk and started to batter her. Shouting that his wife "might as well be
killed so there will be nobody to nag" him, he dragged her towards a
drawer where he kept a gun, but was not able to open the drawer because
it was locked. So he got out a cutter from his wallet, but dropped it. She
was able to hit his arm with a pipe and escape into another room. The wife,
thinking of all the suffering that her husband had been inflicting on her,
and thinking that he might really kill her and her unborn child, distorted
the drawer and got the gun. She shot her husband, who was by then
asleep on the bed. She was tried and convicted for parricide, which is
punishable by reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years) to
death. On appeal, she alleged "battered woman syndrome" as a form of
self-defense. (For Full Case, just click here.
FACTS:
That Marivic Genosa, the Appellant on the 15November1995, attacked and
wounded his husband, which ultimately led to his death. According to the
appellant she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it
was her husband who began the provocation. The Appellant said she was
frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure
she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, The Appelant had to be admitted
later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and
hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on December 1,1995.
The Appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her
husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben would always follow her and
they would reconcile. The Apellant said that the reason why Ben was
violent and abusive towards her that night was because 'he was crazy
about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos.
The Appellant after being interviewed by specialists, has been shown to be
suffering from Battered WomanSyndrome.
The appellant with a plea of self defense admitted the killing of her
husband, she was then found guilty of Parricide, with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.
ISSUES:
Can Marivic Genosa be granted the Justifying circumstance of Self-
defense, and can she be held liable for the aggravating
circumstance of treachery?
No, Since self- defense since the existence of Battered woman syndrome,
which the appellant has been shown to be suffering in the relationship
does not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive
partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense.
In the present case, however, according to the testimony of the appellant
there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of the
husband and her fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to
withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their children's bedroom.
During that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The
reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed had ended
altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat
on her life or safety.
Without continuous aggression there can be no self-defense. And
absence of aggression does not warrant complete or incomplete
self-defense.
No, There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against
persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the offended party
might make.
The circumstances must be shown as indubitably as the killing itself; they
cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or conjectures, which have no
place in the appreciation of evidence. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule
that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery
cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased
may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression
from the assailant.
In the present case, however it was not conclusively shown, that the
appellant intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her
husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory act that he might
make. To the contrary, it appears that the thought of using the gun
occurred to her only at about the same moment when she decided to kill
her spouse. In the absence of any convincing proof that she consciously
and deliberately employed the method by which she committed the crime
in order to ensure its execution, the doubt should be resolved in her favor.
HELD:
The conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby
AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance attending her commission of the offense, her
penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum; to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
ADDENDUM:
When can BWS (Battered Woman Syndrome) as self defense be
appreciated?
Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further
evidence of actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not required.
Incidents of domestic battery usually have a predictable pattern. To require
the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can
defend her life "would amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.'
Still, impending danger (based on the conduct of the victim in previous
battering episodes) prior to the defendant's use of deadly force must be
shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required
imminence of danger. Considering such circumstances and the existence
of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated.
Garcia vs. Drilon on the Constitutionality of RA 9262
Constitutionality of RA 9262 "Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004"
JESUS C. GARCIA vs.THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) appears to have inflicted violence against
private respondent (wife and daughter). Petitioner admitted having an
affair with a bank manager. He callously boasted about their sexual
relations to the household help. His infidelity emotionally wounded private
respondent. Their quarrels left her with bruises and hematoma. Petitioner
also unconscionably beat up their daughter, Jo-ann, whom he blamed for
squealing on him.
All these drove respondent Rosalie Garcia(wife) to despair causing her to
attempt suicide on December 17, 2005 by slitting her wrist. Instead of
taking her to the hospital, petitioner left the house. He never visited her
when she was confined for seven (7) days. He even told his mother-in-law
that respondent should just accept his extramarital affair since he is not
cohabiting with his paramour and has not sired a child with her.
The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. But
she was afraid he would take away their children and deprive her of
financial support. He warned her that if she pursued legal battle, she would
not get a single centavo from him. After she confronted him of his affair, he
forbade her to hold office. This deprived her of access to full information
about their businesses.
Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent
danger of violence against respondent and her children and issued a series
of Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) ordering petitioner, among other
things, to surrender all his firearms including a .9MM caliber firearm and a
Walther PPK.
Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of RA 9262 for
1. making a gender-based classification, thus, providing remedies only to
wives/women and not to husbands/men.
2. He claims that even the title of the law, "An Act Defining Violence Against
Women and Their Children" is already sex-discriminatory because it means
violence by men against women.
3. The law also does not include violence committed by women against
children and other women.
4. He adds that gender alone is not enough basis to deprive the
husband/father of the remedies under it because its avowed purpose is to
curb and punish spousal violence. The said remedies are discriminatory
against the husband/male gender.
5. There being no reasonable difference between an abused husband and
an abused wife, the equal protection guarantee is violated.
 Important and Essential Governmental Objectives:
1. Safeguard Human Rights,
2. Ensure Gender Equality and
3. Empower Women
International Laws
By constitutional mandate, the Philippines is committed to ensure that
human rights and fundamental freedoms are fully enjoyed by everyone.
1. It was one of the countries that voted in favor of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In addition, the Philippines is a
signatory to many United Nations human rights treaties such as the
2. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
3. the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
4. Convention Against Torture, and the
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others.
UDHR
As a signatory to the UDHR, the Philippines pledged itself to achieve the
promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, keeping in mind the standards under the
Declaration. Among the standards under the UDHR are the following:
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood.
xxxx
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal
protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights
granted him by the constitution or by law.
Declaration of Policy in RA 9262
enunciates the purpose of the said law, which is to fulfill the
governments obligation to safeguard the dignity and human rights of
women and children by providing effective remedies against domestic
violence or physical, psychological, and other forms of abuse perpetuated
by the husband, partner, or father of the victim.
The said law is also viewed within the context of the constitutional
mandate to ensure gender equality, which is quoted as follows:
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building,
and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and
men.
ISSUE: WON R.A. NO. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE
OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
HELD:
RA 9262 is NOT UNCONSITUTIONAL.
1. RA 9262 - compliance with the CEDAW
It has been acknowledged that "gender-based violence is a form of
discrimination that seriously inhibits women's ability to enjoy rights and
freedoms on a basis of equality with men." RA 9262 can be viewed
therefore as the Philippines compliance with the CEDAW, which is
committed to condemn discrimination against women and directs its
members to undertake, without delay, all appropriate means to eliminate
discrimination against women in all forms both in law and in practice.
CEDAW
Known as the International Bill of Rights of Women, the CEDAW is the
central and most comprehensive document for the advancement of the
welfare of women. The CEDAW, in its preamble, explicitly acknowledges
the existence of extensive discrimination against women, and emphasized
that such is a violation of the principles of equality of rights and respect
for human dignity.
2. Philippines obligation as state-party to CEDAW
The Philippines is under legal obligation to ensure their development and
advancement for the improvement of their position from one of de jure as
well as de facto equality with men. The CEDAW, going beyond the concept
of discrimination used in many legal standards and norms, focuses on
discrimination against women, with the emphasis that women have
suffered and are continuing to suffer from various forms of discrimination
on account of their biological sex.
The governmental objectives of protecting human rights and fundamental
freedoms, which includes promoting gender equality and empowering
women, as mandated not only by our Constitution, but also by
commitments we have made in the international sphere, are undeniably
important and essential.
RA 9262 provides the widest range of reliefs for women and children who
are victims of violence, which are often reported to have been committed
not by strangers, but by a father or a husband or a person with whom the
victim has or had a sexual or dating relationship.
3. The Gender-Based Classification in RA 9262 is Substantially
Related to the Achievement of Governmental Objectives
Historical Perspective:
 A foreign history professor noted that: "from the earliest civilizations on,
the subjugation of women, in the form of violence, were facts of life,
Judeo-Christian religious ideas; Greek philosophy; and the Common Law
Legal Code: all "assumed patriarchy as natural; that is, male domination
stemming from the view of male superiority."
18th century legal expert William Blackstone, reflected the theological
assumption that: husband and wife were one body before God; thus "they
were one person under the law, and that one person was the husband," a
concept that evidently found its way in some of our Civil Code provisions
prior to the enactment of the Family Code.
Society and tradition dictate that the culture of patriarchy continues.
Men are expected to take on the dominant roles both in the community
and in the family. This perception naturally leads to men gaining more
power over women power, which must necessarily be controlled and
maintained. Violence against women is one of the ways men control
women to retain such power.
In ancient western societies, women whether slave, concubine or
wife, were under the authority of men. In law, they were treated as
property.
The Roman concept of patria potestas allowed the husband to beat, or
even kill, his wife if she endangered his property right over her.
Judaism, Christianity and other religions oriented towards the
patriarchal family strengthened the male dominated structure of society.
English feudal law reinforced the tradition of male control over
women.
However, in the late 1500s and through the entire 1600s, English
common law began to limit the right of husbands to chastise their wives.
Thus, common law developed the rule of thumb, which allowed husbands
to beat their wives with a rod or stick no thicker than their thumb.
Statistics:
The enactment of RA 9262 was in response to the undeniable numerous
cases involving violence committed against women in the Philippines.
In 2012, the Philippine National Police (PNP) reported that 65% or 11,531
out of 15,969 cases involving violence against women were filed under RA
9262.
From 2004 to 2012, violations of RA. 9262 ranked first among the
different categories of violence committed against women. The number of
reported cases showed an increasing trend from 2004 to 2012,
The law recognizes, with valid factual support based on
statistics that women and children are the most vulnerable
victims of violence, and therefore need legal intervention. On the
other hand, there is a dearth of empirical basis to anchor a
conclusion that men need legal protection from violence
perpetuated by women.
4. Different treatment of women and men based on biological,
social, and cultural differences
The persistent and existing biological, social, and cultural differences
between women and men prescribe that they be treated differently under
particular conditions in order to achieve substantive equality for women.
Thus, the disadvantaged position of a woman as compared to a man
requires the special protection of the law, as gleaned from the following
recommendations of the CEDAW Committee:
The Convention requires that women be given an equal start and that
they be empowered by an enabling environment to achieve equality of
results. It is not enough to guarantee women treatment that is identical to
that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally constructed
differences between women and men must be taken into account. Under
certain circumstances, non-identical treatment of women and men will be
required in order to address such differences. Pursuit of the goal of
substantive equality also calls for an effective strategy aimed at
overcoming under representation of women and a redistribution of
resources and power between men and women.
Equality of results is the logical corollary of de facto or substantive
equality. These results may be quantitative and/or qualitative in nature;
that is, women enjoying their rights in various fields in fairly equal numbers
with men, enjoying the same income levels, equality in decision-making
and political influence, and women enjoying freedom from violence.
The governments commitment to ensure that the status of a woman in all
spheres of her life are parallel to that of a man, requires the adoption and
implementation of ameliorative measures, such as RA 9262. Unless the
woman is guaranteed that the violence that she endures in her private
affairs will not be ignored by the government, which is committed to uplift
her to her rightful place as a human being, then she can neither achieve
substantive equality nor be empowered.
5. RA 9262 justified under the Constitution
The Constitution abundantly authorize Congress or the government to
actively undertake ameliorative action that would remedy existing
inequalities and inequities experienced by women and children brought
about by years of discrimination. The equal protection clause when
juxtaposed to this provision provides a stronger mandate for the
government to combat such discrimination. Indeed, these provisions order
Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities."
RA 9262 is THE ameliorative action
In enacting R.A. 9262, Congress has taken an ameliorative action that
would address the evil effects of the social model of patriarchy, a pattern
that is deeply embedded in the societys subconscious, on Filipino women
and children and elevate their status as human beings on the same level
as the father or the husband.
R.A. 9262 aims to put a stop to the cycle of male abuses borne of
discrimination against women. It is an ameliorative measure, not a form of
"reverse discrimination" against. Ameliorative action "is not an
exception to equality, but an expression and attainment of de facto
 equality, the genuine and substantive equality which the Filipino people
themselves enshrined as a goal of the 1987 Constitution." Ameliorative
measures are necessary as a redistributive mechanism in an unequal
society to achieve substantive equality.
Ameliorative measures to achieve substantive equality
In the context of womens rights, substantive equality has been defined
by the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) as equality which requires that women be given an equal
start and that they be empowered by an enabling environment to achieve
equality of results. It is not enough to guarantee women treatment that is
identical to that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally
constructed differences between women and men must be taken into
account. Under certain circumstances, non-identical treatment of
women and men will be required in order to address such differences.
Womens struggle for equality with men has evolved under three models:
1. Formal equality - women and men are to be regarded and treated as
the same. But this model does not take into account biological and socially
constructed differences between women and men. By failing to take into
account these differences, a formal equality approach may in fact
perpetuate discrimination and disadvantage.
2. Protectionist model this recognizes differences between women and
men but considers womens weakness as the rationale for different
treatment. This approach reinforces the inferior status of women and does
not address the issue of discrimination of women on account of their
gender.
3. Substantive equality model this assumes that women are "not
vulnerable by nature, but suffer from imposed disadvantage" and that "if
these imposed disadvantages were eliminated, there was no further need
for protection." Thus, the substantive equality model gives prime
importance to womens contexts, realities, and experiences, and the
outcomes or results of acts and measures directed, at or affecting them,
with a view to eliminating the disadvantages they experience as women.
6. The gender-based classification of RA 9262 does not violate the
Equal Protection Clause (application of the substantive equality model)
The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an
absolute prohibition against classification. The non-identical treatment of
women and men under RA 9262 is justified to put them on equal footing
and to give substance to the policy and aim of the state to ensure the
equality of women and men in light of the biological, historical, social,
and culturally endowed differences between men and women.
RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection to women and
children, who are vulnerable victims of domestic violence, undoubtedly
serves the important governmental objectives of protecting human rights,
insuring gender equality, and empowering women. The gender-based
classification and the special remedies prescribed by said law in favor of
women and children are substantially related, in fact essentially necessary,
to achieve such objectives. Hence, said Act survives the intermediate
review or middle-tier judicial scrutiny. The gender-based classification
therein is therefore not violative of the equal protection clause embodied
in the 1987 Constitution.
Justice Brion: As traditionally viewed, the constitutional provision of equal
protection simply requires that similarly situated persons be treated in the
same way. It does not connote identity of rights among individuals, nor
does it require that every person is treated identically in all circumstances.
It acts as a safeguard to ensure that State-drawn distinctions among
persons are based on reasonable classifications and made pursuant to a
proper governmental purpose. In short, statutory classifications are not
unconstitutional when shown to be reasonable and made pursuant to a
legitimate government objective.
R.A. No. 9262 as a measure intended to strengthen the family.
Congress found that domestic and other forms of violence against women
and children contribute to the failure to unify and strengthen family ties,
thereby impeding the States mandate to actively promote the familys
total development. Congress also found, as a reality, that women and
children are more susceptible to domestic and other forms of
violence due to, among others, the pervasive bias and prejudice against
women and the stereotyping of roles within the family environment that
traditionally exist in Philippine society. On this basis, Congress found it
necessary to recognize the substantial distinction within the family
between men, on the one hand, and women and children, on the other
hand. This recognition, incidentally, is not the first to be made in the laws
as our law on persons and family under the Civil Code also recognize, in
various ways, the distinctions between men and women in the context of
the family.
Justice Leonen: It may be said that violence in the context of intimate
relationships should not be seen and encrusted as a gender issue; rather, it
is a power issue.
By concurring with these statements I express a hope: that the normative
constitutional requirements of human dignity and fundamental equality
can become descriptive reality. The socially constructed distinctions
between women and men that have afflicted us and spawned
discrimination and violence should be eradicated sooner. Power and
intimacy should not co-exist.
The intimate spaces created by our human relationships are our safe
havens from the helter skelter of this world. It is in that space where we
grow in the safety of the special other who we hope will be there for our
entire lifetime. If that is not possible, then for such time as will be sufficient
to create cherished memories enough to last for eternity.
I concur in the ponencia. Against abominable acts, let this law take its full
course.
Justice Abad: RA 9262 is a historic step in the Filipino women's long
struggle to be freed from a long-held belief that men are entitled, when
displeased or minded, to hit their wives or partners and their children. This
law institutionalizes prompt community response to this violent behavior
through barangay officials who can command the man to immediately
desist from harming his home partner and their children. It also establishes
domestic violence as a crime, not only against its victims but against
society as well. No longer is domestic violence lightly dismissed as a case
of marital dispute that law enforcers ought not to get into.
Chief Justice Puno on Expanded Equal protection and Substantive
Equality
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno espouses that the equal protection clause
can no longer be interpreted as only a guarantee of formal equality but of
substantive equality. "It ought to be construed in consonance with social
justice as the heart particularly of the 1987 Constitutiona
transformative covenant in which the Filipino people agreed to enshrine
asymmetrical equality to uplift disadvantaged groups and build a
genuinely egalitarian democracy." This means that the weak, including
women in relation to men, can be treated with a measure of bias that they
may cease to be weak.
Chief Justice Puno goes on: "The Expanded Equal Protection Clause,
anchored on the human rights rationale, is designed as a weapon against
the indignity of discrimination so that in the patently unequal Philippine
society, each person may be restored to his or her rightful position as a
person with equal moral status."