9262 CONSTITUTIONALITY (ACCRA)

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, or “VAWC”; 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, or 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 kind. 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 from rape to making demeaning and
sexually suggestive remarks. Psychological abuse could be any act or omission that causes or 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 October 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 had 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 had been challenged. In a petition
filed before the Supreme Court, the question of the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 was deliberated
upon and resolved. The validity of said 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 Supreme Court a little less than three months ago, on June 25, 2013. In short, the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 9262.

Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, the Supreme Court 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 Supreme Court ruled that 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 Supreme Court 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 Supreme Court, R.A. 9262 is valid and constitutional. This
piece of landmark legislation is proof that 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
(ACCRALAW). He can be contacted at Tel. No. 830-8000 or email
address: 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 not offered as and
does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.)