Position Paper

Topic : Violence against Women and Children

Country : The Philippines

Today, violence against women remains to be one of the most persistent and
alarming issues that the Philippines have faced.

According to a survey conducted by the National Statistics Office (NSO) in

2008, one in every five Filipino women aged 15 to 49 has experienced
violence.[1] When the NSO conducted the 2008 National Demographic and
Health Survey (NDHS), the survey introduced different types of violence that
were done to women or experienced by Filipino women at least once their
lives. The types of violence that were indicated were: physical violence,
sexual violence, physical violence during pregnancy, and spousal violence.

Aside from the types of violence mentioned above, Filipino women

experience violence, specifically in how women are often objectified in
media. Cases of women being forced to pose in magazines or use their
bodies for money (i.e. pornography) are growing more and more each day.
More than magazines and videos, many women especially, celebrities have
been targeted and exposed through sex scandals and the release of their
private often, nude pictures on the internet. On a more daily basis, Filipino
women also experience violence in being 'cat-called' on the streets as well as
being touched and/or sexually harassed by co-workers, classmates, friends,
and even strangers on the commute (Cat-calling happens when "people
shout uncalled for and sexual comments at women on the street").

The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the country’s Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, as it threw out a petition
labelling it as a “husband-bashing” and “hate men” law. R.A. 9262 does not
violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed. R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as shall hereinafter be
discussed and, as such, did not violate the equal protection clause by
favouring women over men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the
State extends its protection.

There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the
husband or father as the culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise be
committed “against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word “person”
who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses
even lesbian relationships.
Moreover, R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as such, did not
violate the equal protection clause by favouring women over men as victims
of violence and abuse to whom the State extends its protection. 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. As Justice McIntyre succinctly states, “the
accommodation of differences is the essence of true equality.”

It further stated that the law was enacted “to address the discrimination
brought about by biases and prejudices against women.” “Petitioner’s
contention, therefore, that RA 9262 is discriminatory and that it is an ‘anti-
male,’ ‘husband-bashing,’ and ‘hate men’ law deserves scant consideration,”
the decision read.

RA 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws. Equal
protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. In
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workerkers’ Union, the Court ruled that all that is
required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that
the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for
real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; not
limited to existing conditions only; and apply equally to each member of the
class. Therefore, RA9262 is based on a valid classification and did not violate
the equal protection clause by favouring women over men as victims of
violence and abuse to whom the Senate extends its protection.

RA 9262 is not violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. The
essence of due process is in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and
submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s defense. The grant of
the TPO exparte cannot be impugned as violative of the right to due process.