Previous 14 / 33 Next

Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I am inclined to believe the rationale used by the distinguished proponent of the amendment. As a matter of fact, I tend to agree. Kung may maaabuso, mas malamang iyong babae kaysa sa lalake. At saka iyong mga lalake, puwede na talagang magulpi iyan. Okey lang iyan. But I cannot agree that we remove the children from this particular measure. So, if I may propose an amendment – The President Pro Tempore. To the amendment. Senator Sotto. – more than the women, the children are very much abused. As a matter of fact, it is not limited to minors. The abuse is not limited to seven, six, 5-year-old children. I have seen 14, 15year-old children being abused by their fathers, even by their mothers. And it breaks my heart to find out about these things. Because of the inadequate existing law on abuse of children, this particular measure will update that. It will enhance and hopefully prevent the abuse of children and not only women. SOTTO-LEGARDA AMENDMENTS Therefore, may I propose an amendment that, yes, we remove the aspect of the men in the bill but not the children. Senator Legarda. I agree, Mr. President, with the Minority Leader. The President Pro Tempore. Effectively then, it will be women AND CHILDREN. Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. Senator Estrada. It is accepted, Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being none, the amendment, as amended, is approved.66 It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute.67 Hence, we dare not venture into the real motivations and wisdom of the members of Congress in limiting the protection against violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made its choice and it is not our prerogative to supplant this judgment. The choice may be perceived as erroneous but even then, the remedy against it is to seek its amendment or repeal by the legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any law.68 We only step in when there is a violation of the Constitution. However, none was sufficiently shown in this case. 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. The oft-repeated disquisition in the early case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union69 is instructive: The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Garcia v. Drilon

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 179267

Date of decision: Jun 25, 2013

Year of decision: 2013

GBV Case Type

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC)

Nature of the case: A married woman, 45 years of age who belongs to the middle-class women, together with her 17 years old girl child, 6 years old and 3 years old boy children were abused by the accused who is the husband and the father of the victims respectively, physically, emotionally, psychological and economically and thus the private complainant for herself and in behalf of her children filed a verified petition before the RTC of Bacolod for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband as result of marital infidelity on the part of the accused with threats of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support. Meanwhile, the accused belatedly questioned the constitutionality of RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 of which the Supreme Court outrightly denied for the reason that the said law does not violate the equal protection clause of Article III of the Constitution nor is violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. Therefore, the TPO was then renewed and extended for 30 days and the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the accused challenging the validity / constitutionality of RA 9262 was denied for lack of merit.

Summary of outcome: Re: Temporary Protection Order: The same is renewed and extended for thirty (30) days. Re: Review on Certiorari (Challenging the validty / constitutionality of RA 9262: Denied for lack of merit.

Ration: No concrete evidence and convincing arguments were presented by petitioner to warrant a declaration of the unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262. In reiteration of Justice Puno's obsevation that "the history of the women's movement against domestic violence shows that one of its most difficult struggles was the fight against the violence of law itself. If we keep that in mind, law will not again be a hindrance to the struggle of women for equality but will be its fulfillment." Hence, the constitutionality of RA 9262 is sustained.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Long title: JESUS C. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, for herself and in behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, JOSEPH EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA, Respondents.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 10.65916

Longitude: 122.967445

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

GARCIA V. DRILON.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Garcia v. Drilon

Primary Documents

Notifications