Previous 13 / 33 Next

other family members particularly children who are excluded. Although Republic Act No. 7610, for instance, more or less, addresses the special needs of abused children. The same law is inadequate. Protection orders for one are not available in said law. I am aware that some groups are apprehensive about granting the same protection to men, fearing that they may use this law to justify their abusive behavior against women. However, we should also recognize that there are established procedures and standards in our courts which give credence to evidentiary support and cannot just arbitrarily and whimsically entertain baseless complaints. Mr. President, this measure is intended to harmonize family relations and to protect the family as the basic social institution. Though I recognize the unequal power relations between men and women in our society, I believe we have an obligation to uphold inherent rights and dignity of both husband and wife and their immediate family members, particularly children. While I prefer to focus mainly on women, I was compelled to include other family members as a critical input arrived at after a series of consultations/meetings with various NGOs, experts, sports groups and other affected sectors, Mr. President. Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. Yes, with the permission of the other senators. Senator Sotto. Yes, with the permission of the two ladies on the Floor. The President Pro Tempore. Yes, Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III is recognized. Senator Sotto. I presume that the effect of the proposed amendment of Senator Legarda would be removing the "men and children" in this particular bill and focus specifically on women alone. That will be the net effect of that proposed amendment. Hearing the rationale mentioned by the distinguished sponsor, Sen. Luisa "Loi" Ejercito Estrada, I am not sure now whether she is inclined to accept the proposed amendment of Senator Legarda. I am willing to wait whether she is accepting this or not because if she is going to accept this, I will propose an amendment to the amendment rather than object to the amendment, Mr. President. xxxx Senator Estrada. The amendment is accepted, Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection? xxxx Senator Sotto. x x x May I propose an amendment to the amendment. The President Pro Tempore. Before we act on the amendment? Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. Yes, please proceed.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Garcia v. Drilon

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 179267

Date of decision: Hun 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