The Supreme Court (SC) has released a ruling allowing fathers to institute cases under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act against mothers who abuse their children.
This as the high court, in an 18-page decision written by Justice Mario V. Lopez, granted the petition of Randy Michael Knutson on behalf of his minor daughter.
The petition challenged the ruling of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissing Knutson’s petition under Republic Act 9262, or the VAWC Act, for the issuance of Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina Knutson, the mother of his daughter.
In his petition, Knutson claimed that Rosalina placed their daughter in a harmful environment deleterious to the latter’s physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.
The RTC dismissed Knutson’s petition on the ground that protection and custody orders under the VAWC Act could not be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.
The RTC added that the remedies under the law were not available to Knutson, the father, because he was not a “woman victim of violence.”
In granting Knutson’s petition, the Sc ruled that while the VAWC Act excludes men as victims, this does not mean the law denies a father of its remedies solely because of his gender or the fact that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”
The Court held that Section 9(b) of the VAWC Act explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders.
This provision was further incorporated in the law’s implementing rules as well as in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Children.
The Court further explained that the law speaks in clear language when it used the word “parents” pertaining to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim.
Source: https://abogado.com.ph/sc-okays-father-to-file-vawc-case-on-behalf-of-abused-children/
The illicitness of a relationship a woman engages in does not diminish her dignity in any way. She will be protected just the same by the law that values her and her children’s dignity and guarantees full respect for their human rights.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court’s Second Division upheld a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) issued under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, over contentions that sought to straitjacket the text and spirit of the law.
The petitioner was a man against whom the PPO had been issued to prevent further acts of violence against the respondents—his longtime live- in partner, a woman, and their children. He was 47 and admittedly married when he met the respondent woman, then 20, in 1979.
Before the Court, the petitioner primarily argues that Republic Act No. 9262 cannot provide relief for the respondent woman, as she was only his paramour. For him, although the law’s protection extends to a woman with whom one has or had a sexual or dating relationship, this should be interpreted to mean as a relationship without any legal impediment to marry each other. Otherwise, he says, the law would effectively tolerate adulterous relationships.
Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not make any distinction, neither should the courts, the Court corrected the petitioner’s mistaken notion. It said that the law “protects women and their children from various forms of violence and abuse committed within a setting of an intimate relationship”—including the respondent woman and their children.
The Court applied the same rule in rejecting the petitioner’s other contention: that since their children have attained the age of majority by the time the PPO was issued, this precludes the application of Republic Act No. 9262, which defines “children” as those below 18 years old, or older but incapable of taking care of themselves.
Citing Estacio v. Estacio, a similar case of violence against women and their children, the Court explained that neither Republic Act No. 9262 nor the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children distinguishes the age at which children are included in protection orders.
On both issues, the Court upheld the State policy of protecting women and children from violence and threats to their security and safety, declaring that it “will not interpret a provision of Republic Act No. 9262 as to make it powerless and futile.”
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload the decision to the SC website once it receives an official copy from the Office of the Clerk Court Second Division. (G.R. No. 187175, Cabañez v. AAA)
The “denial of financial support” by a man to their partner/child can lead to conviction under Section 5 of VAWC only if it is also proven that such act was intended to either cause the victim mental/emotional anguish or humiliation [per Section 5(e)], or to control/restrict the woman/child’s actions or decisions [per Section 5(i)].
The Court also clarified (abandoning past jurisprudence) that the “denial of financial support” under Sec. 5(e) of VAWC is distinct from that under Sec. 5(i). The variance doctrine, which previously justified the conviction under Section 5(i) of one accused under Sec. 5(e), and vice-versa, can not thus apply.
The case is Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, 9 November 2021 (uploaded today). https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/27269/ The Court was unanimous, but 5 Justices (JJ. Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, and M. Lopez) have separate concurring opinions.
joining the 18-day campaign of the Philippine Commission on Women to end violence against women
please subscribe to my youtube channel. thanks
Oh My Kwento!!!! 