SOCIAL LEGISLATION

Garcia vs. J. Drilon and Garcia, G. R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013

Nature of the Case: Petition for Review of Republic Act (R.A.) 9262
Facts:

Private respondent Rosalie filed a petition before the RTC of Bacolod City a Temporary

Protection Order against her husband, Jesus, pursuant to R.A. 9262, entitled An Act Defining Violence
Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties
Therefor, and for Other Purposes. She claimed to be a victim of physical, emotional, psychological and
economic violence, being threatened of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support
and also a victim of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner.
The TPO was granted but the petitioner failed to faithfully comply with the conditions set forth by the
said TPO, private-respondent filed another application for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. The trial court
issued a modified TPO and extended the same when petitioner failed to comment on why the TPO
should not be modified. After the given time allowance to answer, the petitioner no longer submitted
the required comment as it would be an axercise in futility.
Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and TRO on,
questioning the constitutionality of the RA 9262 for violating the due process and equal protection
clauses, and the validity of the modified TPO for being an unwanted product of an invalid law.
The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but however, denied the petition for failure to raise
the issue of constitutionality in his pleadings before the trial court and the petition for prohibition to
annul protection orders issued by the trial court constituted collateral attack on said law.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus, this petition is filed.
Issues: WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the theory that the issue of constitutionality was
not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the petition constitutes a collateral attack on the validity
of the law.

WON the CA committed serious error in failing to conclude that RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust and
violative of the equal protection clause.

WON the CA committed grave mistake in not finding that RA 9262 runs counter to the due process
clause of the Constitution

WON the CA erred in not finding that the law does violence to the policy of the state to protect the
family as a basic social institution

WON the CA seriously erredin declaring RA 9262 as invalid and unconstitutional because it allows an
undue delegation of judicial power to Brgy. Officials.
Decision:

1. Petitioner contends that the RTC has limited authority and jurisdiction, inadequate to

tackle the complex issue of constitutionality. Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider
the constitutionality of a statute. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
time so that if not raised in the pleadings, it may not be raised in the trial and if not raised in the trial
court, it may not be considered in appeal.
2. 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.
3. 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 ones
defense. The grant of the TPO exparte cannot be impugned as violative of the right to due process.
4. The non-referral of a VAWC case to a mediator is justified. Petitioners contention that by not allowing
mediation, the law violated the policy of the State to protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution cannot be sustained. In a memorandum of the Court, it ruled that the
court shall not refer the case or any issue therof to a mediator. This is so because violence is not a
subject for compromise.
5. There is no undue delegation of judicial power to Barangay officials. Judicial power includes the duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on any part of any branch of the Government while executive power is the
power to enforce and administer the laws. The preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor is
an executive, not a judicial, function. The same holds true with the issuance of BPO. Assistance by
Brgy. Officials and other law enforcement agencies is consistent with their duty executive function.
The petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit.

SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN VS. SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN AND JUANITA L. TAN
G.R. No. 168852

September 30, 2008

Parents-in-law can be violators of RA 9262 under the principle of conspiracy in the RPC.
FACTS:
Sharica and Steven were married with two daughters. Barely six years into the marriage, Sharica filed a
Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order against Steven and her parents-inlaw, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). She
alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic
abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of R.A. No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. The RTC granted
such.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons
since, as parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
Sharica argued otherwise. The RTC dismissed the case stating that being the parents-in-law, they were
not included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law expressio
unius est exclusio alterius. The RTC reasoned that to include respondents under the coverage of R.A.
No. 9262 would be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES PERFECTO & JUANITA, PARENTS-IN-LAW OF SHARICA, MAY
BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004.
HELD:
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines [v]iolence against women and their children as any act or a series
of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with
whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in
or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including
threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
While the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage,
former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle

of conspiracy under the RPC. Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory
application of the RPC.
One of the basic fundamental rights not only affirmed in the CEDAW but all the other major human
rights treaties is the principle of non-discrimination.