ISSUES AND PROBLEMS IN THE ENFORCEMENT

OF THE ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004*

Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon**

Marie Arcie Anne M. Sercado***

I. INTRODUCTION

Since 1995, violence against women (VAW) has captured the

attention of the government and legislators in the Philippines as a result of
the demand of a growing women’s human rights movement and the State
Obligation of the Philippine Government under the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, its Optional
Protocol as well as other international conventions. The Beijing Conference
on Women in 1995 heightened the demand of women’s rights advocates for
laws protecting women from violence all over the world.

Progressive reforms in laws protecting women were brought about

by several factors beginning with the democratization process that started in
the 1986 People Power Revolution after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship,
the 1987 Constitution1 that has specific provisions on the rights of women
and fundamental equality before the law of men and women, the increasing
number of women’s organizations in the provinces with links to Metro
Manila based women’s human rights organizations, and the participation of
women legislations who are becoming increasingly aware of the need for
gender equality and the elimination of VAW. This period marks the

* Cite as Rowena Guanzon & Arcie Sercado, Issues and Problems in the Enforcement of the Anti-Violence Against Women and

Their Children Act of 2004, 83 PHIL. L.J. 312, (page cited) (2008).
** Ll.B, University of the Philippines College of Law (Class ’84.) Graduate, U.P. School of Economics (’79). MA in Public

Administration,
Edward Mason Fellow and Class Marshal, Harvard University (’95). Former consultant, Women’s rights in the Senate.
Drafted, Republic Act No. 9262. Senior professorial lecturer, University of the Philippines College of Law; Litigation lawyer and
writer, in the pioneer field of gender discrimination rights. Former Mayor , Cadiz City (1986-1992). Member, Steering Committee
of the Asia Cause Lawyers Network. Founding member, CEDAW Watch and Gender Justice Network. Lead author,
“Engendering the Philippine Judiciary” and “The Davide Court: Its Contributions to Gender and Women’s Rights.”.
*** 2nd year evening student, University of the Philippines, College of Law. Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism, cum laude, UP

College of Mass Communication. Executive Assistant II, Supreme Court Public Information Office. Resident Sister and Inter-
Fraternity and Sorority Representative, UP Delta Lambda Sigma Sorority. Graduate, Makeup Artistry at the Lasalle College
International.
1 CONST . (1987), art. II §14.

312
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 313

contribution of women legislators who were elected in the 1992 elections

and thereafter2.

A. LAWS ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BEFORE THE 1987

CONSTITUTION

1. In Criminal Law

Before special laws addressing VAW or domestic violence were

passed, women could only resort to the Revised Penal Code3 for offenses
committed against them by their husbands such as physical injuries or
attempted or frustrated parricide. If committed by their intimate partners,
the charge could be physical injuries, attempted or frustrated homicide, or
rape. There was no offense of marital rape before Republic Act No. 8353.4

Other forms of violence, e.g., verbal, emotional, psychological, or

economic abuse (such as deprivation of support) were not punishable under
the Revised Penal Code or any special law before Republic Act No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act of 2004 was passed.

There was no recognition of crimes against women as gender- based

violence. Rape was classified as a “crime against chastity,” until it was
amended as a “crime against persons” in the Anti-Rape Act of 1997. Its
classification as a crime against chastity reflected the gender bias against
women and stereotyping about rape, which required women to prove in
court that they were chaste or “virgins” before judges could believe that they
were indeed raped, even though “chastity” is not an element of the crime.

2. In Civil Law

The remedy of a protection order, which began in the United States

in the 1970s, was not available as a relief in civil or criminal actions until
Republic Act No. 9262 was passed. Battered women had no easy recourse
in the law and in the courts, and their situation was made more difficult by
the fact that before the Family Code of the Philippines (August 1988), the

2 Women legislators comprise only about 10% of total members of the House of Representatives and at present (2008),

there are only four women senators out of twelve (12).

3 Enacted on January 1, 1932.
4 Otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Act of 1997.
314 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
husband was the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership under the
New Civil Code.

When the wife and minor children were deprived of support by the
husband who had control of the conjugal assets, the wife could only file a
civil action for support, which is lengthy and costly, thus leaving her no
choice but to immediately settle for what the husband is willing to give.
Many women stayed in the marriage and did not flee the home or seek
redress in the court despite repeated violence for lack of financial support
especially when they have minor children. As will be discussed, Republic Act
No. 9262 now gives the abused woman the relief of both civil and criminal
action, and deprivation of adequate support is now a crime.5

The lack of a divorce law in the Philippines6 also leaves battered

women with no easy way out of their marriage. Instead, the Family Code
provides for “psychological incapacity” as the only ground for nullity of
marriage.7 It provides for legal separation on the grounds of repeated physical
abuse, grossly abusive conduct, abandonment for at least one year and
attempt on the life of the spouse. A woman has to prove physical abuse
committed at least two times before she can be granted legal separation and
forfeit the share in the conjugal or community property of the guilty
husband in favor of common children.

B. LAWS ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN (VAW)

Since 1995 there are six (6) laws on VAW8 in the Philippines, and a
Family Courts Act9 that provides for the jurisdiction of Family Courts in
cases involving domestic violence, violence against women, and cases
wherein the complainant or defendant is a child.

5 See Rep. Act No. 9262, §5(e)(1) or deprivation of custody or access to her minor children; Rep. Act No. 9262, §3(c) or

all forms of abuse, including verbal or emotional abuse and marital infidelity as psychological violence; Rep. Act No. 9262,
§3(d)(2) or deprivation or threat or deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use or enjoyment of conjugal or
community asset.
6 The Philippines is the only country in Asia that has no divorce law, and the only other country aside from Malta that

has no divorce law all over the world.

7 Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines was patterned after Art. 39 of the Canon Law.
8 See Rep. Act No. 7877, The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (1995); Rep. Act No. 8353, The New Anti-Rape Act

of 1997 (1997); Rep. Act No. 8505, The Rape Victims Assistance Act (1998); Rep. Act No. 6955, An Act Declaring Unlawful
the Matching of Filipino Mail Order Brides to Foreigners (1990); Rep. Act No. 9208, The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003 (2003); Rep. Act No. 9262, The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (2004); and Rep. Act
No. 7610, Child Protection Act, (1991).
9 Rep. Act No. 8369 (1997).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 315

II. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF

2004 OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 926210

Of all the laws on VAW, Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known
as the Anti- Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
(hereinafter referred to as the “Anti-VAWC Act”) is the first to address the
problem of domestic violence, has the widest range of reliefs for women
who are victims of violence, and the most controversial. The purposes of
this article are a) to help inform the reader, especially lawyers, judges and
women about the law, its spirit and intent, b) to show the liberal use of
protection orders in other countries in order to ensure the protection of
women’s right to equality and right to security, c) answer the constitutional
issues or questions often raised by respondents, d) present the issues and
problems in the enforcement of Republic Act No. 9262, e) give the policy
recommendations of an expert group on legislations on VAW which was
organized by the United Nations, and f) provide recommendations for legal
and judicial reform and for government agency implementers.

The Anti-VAWC Act is the result of a decade of advocacy of victim-

survivors, women’s human rights advocates and women’s organizations,
women legislators, and government agencies11. The passage of this law
marks the state’s compliance with its obligations under the Convention on
the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)12 which the
Philippines ratified in 1981, and the Optional Protocol on the CEDAW,
which was ratified by the Philippine Senate13 in 2003. The law includes in its
Declaration of Policy14 that:

…the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees
full respect for human rights, and its obligation to address violence
committed against women and children in keeping with the
fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the
provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other

10 The law took effect on March 27, 2004.

11 Notably the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) and the Department of Social Welfare
and Development. The Chairperson of the NCRFW was Aurora Javate - De Dios, former member of the CEDAW
Committee. Among the women’s rights organizations that worked for the passage of the law were: Sama-samang Inisyatiba ng
Kababaihan sa Pagbabago ng Batas at Lipunan (SIBOL), Women’s Crisis Center, Inc., Democratic Socialist Women of the
Philippines, and Womanhealth, Inc.. Among the women legislators who sponsored the law were Representative Josefina
Joson, Representative Bellaflor Angara-Castillo, Senator Eloisa Ejercito, and Senator Loren Legarda. Senate President
Franklin M. Drilon gave priority to RA No. 9262 and RA No. 9208.
12 As of 2007, 186 states have ratified the CEDAW.
13 Senate President Franklin M. Drilon spearheaded the ratification of the Optional Protocol.
14 CONST . (1987), art. II, §11.
316 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a
party.

The Optional Protocol to the CEDAW is an inquiry procedure

through which the CEDAW Committee can review complaints filed by
individual women for grave and systematic violation of their rights
guaranteed by the Convention. As of November 27, 2007, ninety countries
have ratified the Optional Protocol. Among the cases that the CEDAW
Committee has favorably acted upon was the case of Sahide Goekce
(deceased) versus Austria, submitted by The Vienna Intervention Centre
Against Domestic Violence and the Association for Women’s Access to
Justice in July 2004. The CEDAW Committee wrote that in the light of the
long record of battering, by not responding to the victim’s call immediately,
the police are accountable for failing to exercise diligence to protect Sahide
Goekce. Among the Committee’s Recommendations to the State party was
to: “ensure enhanced coordination among law enforcement and judicial
officers and also ensure that all levels of the criminal justice system (police,
public prosecutors, judges) routinely cooperate with non-governmental
organizations that work to protect and support women victims of gender-
based violence.” The CEDAW Committee required the State party to give
due consideration to the views of the Committee and submit within six
months, a written response and action taken on the recommendations.

In 1992, the CEDAW Committee issued General Recommendation

No. 19, which provides that gender-based violence is an issue of gender
discrimination. On December 20, 1993, the UN General Assembly adopted
the Declaration of Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW),
which defined violence against women for the first time and enjoined
governments to take specific measures to eliminate VAW.15

The broad definition of VAW in Republic Act No. 9262 was

patterned after the DEVAW. It refers to:

…any act or 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

15 Rowena Guanzon, et. al., Engendering the Philippine Judiciary, 48 (2006).

2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 317

economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,

coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.16

The Anti-VAWC Act covers all forms of violence, such as physical,

sexual, psychological, and economic. Economic abuse includes deprivation
of support to the wife and minor children, which is a common problem in
the Philippines. Marital infidelity constitutes psychological violence, a legal
development which gives women the relief of a criminal action for violation
of the Anti-VAWC Act aside from the criminal complaint for Concubinage,
which is difficult to prove because the law requires cohabitation or sexual
intercourse under scandalous circumstances.

A. FEATURES OF THE ANTI-VAWC ACT17

The law is gender-specific, protecting the rights of women and their

children. Only women may file actions under the Anti-VAWC Act, while
the offenders may either be men or women with whom the victims are or
were in lesbian relationships.18 The definition includes past or present
marital, live-in, sexual or dating relationships. The inclusion of men with
whom the victim–survivor has a common child was included in the
Bicameral Committee upon the request of the Department of Social Welfare
and Development to protect the rights of women who are not married to
the fathers of their children, including children of rape victims.

Notwithstanding the clarity of the intent of the law in its title, Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, which means that
the law gives relief to women only and not men, at least four family court
judges have issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against women
using The Anti-VAWC Act, the most recent of which is one issued in
December 2008 in favor of a male petitioner who is a foreigner. This
problem will be discussed at length in subsequent paragraphs.

The Anti-VAWC Act provides for the remedy of a protection order

in a civil action or in criminal action, aside from the criminal action for
violation of Republic Act No. 9262. An ex parte Temporary Protection
Order shall be issued by the Judge within twenty-four hours from the filing

16 Rep. Act No. 9262, §3.

17 This was taken from the expert paper written by Attorney Guanzon for the Expert Group Meeting on Good
Practices in Legislation on Violence Against Women held at the United Nations Office in Vienna, Austria last 26th to 28th of
May 2008. This can be accessed at un.org.
18 The first known case of a criminal action filed by a woman against her lesbian partner under Rep. Act No. 9262 was

filed in Metro Manila.

318 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
of the verified application upon a finding that there is reasonable ground to
believe that an imminent danger of violence to the woman and her children
exists or is about to recur. After hearing on the merits, a Permanent
Protection Order (PPO) may be granted.

The relief of Temporary and Permanent Protection Order may be

filed as an independent action, or together with an action for damages,
support, custody, legal separation, dissolution of the community property or
nullity of marriage. If the offended party chooses to file a criminal action,
the petition for protection order is deemed instituted with the criminal
action19 so that a Temporary Protection Order may be issued during the
trial. In case of conviction, the permanent protection order shall issue as a
matter of course. If it results to an acquittal, where the judgment declares
that the quantum of evidence is not enough to sustain a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt, the court shall determine whether or not to issue a
permanent protection order.20

Following the Framework for model legislation on domestic

violence by the UN Special Rapporteur on VAW, the Anti-VAWC Act has:

1. Complaints Mechanism and Duties of Police Officers

Sec. 29. Duties of prosecutors and court personnel to inform the

woman of her rights, remedies, procedure, and privileges for indigent
litigants.

Sec. 30. Duties of Barangay (village) Officials and Law Enforcers:

They must respond immediately to a call for help by entering the
dwelling if necessary whether or not a protection order has been
issued and ensure the safety of the victim; confiscate deadly weapon;
transport the victim to a safe place of their choice or to a clinic or
hospital; assist the victim in taking personal belongings from the
house; ensure enforcement of protection orders issued by the village
official or by the courts.

Sec. 31. Duties of health care providers.

Sec. 32. Duties of other government agencies and local government

units, such as education and information campaign on VAW and the
law.

19 A.M. No. 04-10-11 SC, § 33(b) (2004).

20 A.M. No. 04-10-11 SC, § 33(b) (2004).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 319

2. Ex Parte Protection Order

An ex parte Temporary Protection Order (“TPO”) shall be issued by

the Judge within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of the verified
application upon a finding that there is reasonable ground to believe that an
imminent danger to the woman exists or is about to recur. A Permanent
Protection Order may be issued after hearing on the merits, following
Summary Procedure to expedite the proceeding. Note that a protection
order includes an order granting the woman and her children support, so as
to enable the woman to regain control of her life. Thus, imminent danger to
the woman does not mean only physical danger or threat thereof, but
includes the entirety of violence committed against her, including
deprivation of support or deprivation of custody of minor children, which
must be addressed with dispatch in the TPO. It is not sufficient that the
abuser stays away from the woman and her children. He must also deliver
support, which as manager of the conjugal or community assets or as the
spouse who has an income, he is required to do under the Family Code.

i. Who May File for Protection Orders

A petition for protection order may be filed by any of the

following21 :

1) offended party
2) parents or guardians
3) ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
4) officers or social workers of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development or social workers of local government units (provinces,
cities, municipalities)
5) police officers, preferably those in women and children’s desks
6) Punong Barangay (chairperson of the village council) or kagawad
(council member)
7) lawyer, counselor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner

At least two (2) concerned responsible citizens of the city or

municipality where the violence occurred and who has personal
knowledge of the offense.

21 Rep. Act No. 9262, §9 (2004.

320 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83

If the petitioner is not the offended party, the petition must be

accompanied with an affidavit of the petitioner attesting to the fact that he
or she has authority to file the petition, the circumstances of the abuse, and
the circumstances of consent given or refusal to consent of the offended
party to file the petition.22

ii. Contents of a Protection Order

A TPO can include: a) removal of the offender from the home

regardless of ownership; b) delivery of financial support to the woman and
minor children; c) automatic remittance of a percentage of the offender’s
salary or income as support for the woman and children; d) stay away order;
4) granting of temporary custody of minor children to the woman; 5)
possession of a vehicle or automobile regardless of ownership; 6) the
posting of a Bond to Keep the Peace to ensure compliance with the
protection order. A TPO is valid for thirty (30) days and shall be extended
until judgment. Many Family Court Judges include an automatic renewal
clause in the TPO to ensure that there is no gap or opportunity for
respondents to abuse the complainants pending litigation.

A Permanent Protection Order shall be issued after hearing on the

merits following the Summary Procedure. It can include the reliefs in the
TPO and permanent removal of the offender from the house and other
reliefs. A Bond to Keep the Peace may be included in the Temporary or
Permanent Protection Order to ensure compliance. Violation of a protection
order is a criminal offense, and the Judge may also use her or his power of
contempt.

iii. Barangay Protection Order

A Barangay Protection Order (“BPO”) shall be issued by any barangay

official, ordering the offender to desist from committing further acts of
physical abuse or threats of physical abuse. Mediation or conciliation of
VAW and their children cases in the barangay is prohibited by The Anti-
VAW Act.23 The features of a BPO are:

a) it is granted ex parte within twenty-four (24) hours from

application

22 A.M. No. 04-10-11 SC, §10 (2004).

23 Rep. Act No. 9262, §33 (2004).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 321

b) it may be issued by the Chairperson of the barangay council, or in

her or his absence, by any barangay official
c) it is granted on grounds of physical abuse or threats of physical
abuse only
d) it is valid for fifteen (15) days only
e) its violation is a criminal offense punishable with thirty (30) days
imprisonment
f) it may be availed of whether or not the woman seeks relief in
court by applying for a protection order

A BPO may not include an award of support, or any relief other

than an order for the respondent to stay away from the woman and her
children for fifteen days. An order of support may be issued by a judge in
an application for protection order.

3. Addresses Both Criminal and Civil Proceedings

The law gives the woman the remedy of protection order which she
can file as an independent civil action or together with other civil actions
such as legal separation or nullity of marriage, or dissolution of community
property, custody, support or damages.

A woman may also file a criminal action for violation of The Anti-
VAWC Act and an application for a protection order is deemed included in
the criminal action unless reserved or filed separately.

4. Provides for Support Services for Victims

Sec. 40. Programs and services for victims such as free legal
assistance, counseling, psycho-social services, rehabilitation programs
and livelihood assistance.

5. Programs for Perpetrators

Sec. 41. Counseling and treatment of offenders; the Court can order
the offender to submit to psychiatric treatment or confinement.
322 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
6. Training for Police and Judicial Officials24

The law provides that all agencies involved in responding to VAW

and their children cases shall be required to undergo education and training
on a) the nature and causes of VAW and their children, b) legal rights and
remedies of victims, c) services available, d) legal duties of police officers to
make arrests and offer protection and assistance, and f) techniques for
handling incidents of VAW. The Police in coordination with local
governments shall establish an education and training program on how to
handle VAW cases properly.

The Judiciary has its own training on gender equality and gender-
sensitivity for judges conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy. The
Supreme Court has a Committee on Gender–Responsiveness of the
Judiciary (CGRJ) with Justices as chairpersons.25

7. In addition, The Anti-VAWC Act has Provisions:

a) Prohibiting the mediation or conciliation of VAWC cases in the

barangay.

b) The Anti-VAWC Act repeals the provisions in the Local

Government Code26 which require mediation by barangay officials when
cases are punishable with imprisonment of less than one year or fine of Five
Thousand Pesos. It also provides for a prohibition against judges and
barangay officials from influencing the woman to compromise or abandon
any of the reliefs under The Anti-VAWC Act.27 Violation of this provision
by a judge or barangay official shall render her or him administratively liable
under section 33 of Republic Act No. 9262. Section 27 of the Rule on
Violence Against Women and Their Children28 as the rule for trial of cases
under the Anti-VAWC Act, also provides for administratively liability of
judges who violate Section 33 of the law.

c) Providing for an Inter-Agency Council on Violence Against Women29,

composed of national government agencies tasked to have programs to
eliminate VAW and to monitor the implementation of the law. The Inter-

24 Rep. Act No. 9262, §42 (2004).

25 Rowena Guanzon, et. al., ‘The Davide Court: Its Contributions to Gender and Women’s Rights’, 53-76 (2006). Justice Adolfo
S. Azcuna and Justice Conchita Carpio Morales are the current chairpersons of the CGRJ.
26 Rep. Act No. 7160, §410-413 (1992).
27 Rep. Act No. 9262, §33 (2004).
28 A.M. No. 04-10-11 SC (2004).
29 Rep. Act No. 9262, §39 (2004).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 323

Agency Committee on VAWC30 formulated the Implementing Rules and

Regulations on Republic Act No. 9262, which provides for duties of and
guidelines and training programs for implementers.

d) Providing for Battered Woman Syndrome as a justifying circumstance,

where the woman does not incur any criminal or civil liability.31 In no case
shall custody of minor children of a woman suffering from battered woman
syndrome shall be granted to the batterer.32

Before Republic Act No. 9262 was passed, the Supreme Court
defined Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) in People vs. Marivic Genosa (2004),
but held that it was only a mitigating circumstance. With Republic Act No.
9262, BWS is now a justifying circumstance, and the courts will be assisted
by expert witnesses such as psychologists and psychiatrists in determining
whether the accused woman is suffering from BWS or not.

e) Providing for exemption of persons intervening from liability. Any person,

private individual or police authority or barangay official who responds or
intervenes without using restraint greater than necessary to ensure the safety
of the victim shall not incur any criminal, civil or administrative liability.33

This provision was included upon the persistent request of non-

government organizations engaged in helping battered women, whose
members are vulnerable to retaliation suits filed by the husbands or partners
of their clients. A similar provision granting immunity from suit to social
workers can be found in Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Anti-
Child Abuse Act, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

f) Providing for a hold departure order against the respondent34.

g) Providing for the rights of victims to be treated with dignity, avail of

legal assistance, support services from the local governments and
Department of Social Welfare and Development, to be entitled to all legal
remedies and support under the Family Code, and to be informed of their
rights and services available, including the right to apply for a protection

30 Composed of, among others, the Department of Social Work and Development, the National Commission on the

Role of Filipino Women, the Philippine National Police and the Department of Justice, with three non-government
organizations including the Women’s Crisis Center, Inc.
31 Rep. Act No. 9262, §26 (2004).
32 Rep. Act No. 9262, §28 (2004).
33 Rep. Act No. 9262, §34 (2004).
34 Rep. Act No. 9262, §37 (2004).
324 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
order,35 the right to confidentiality of all records and their name, address,
telephone number, school, business address, employer or other identifying
information of a victim or an immediate family member36 and exemption
from payment of docket fee and other court expenses if she is an indigent or
there is an immediate necessity due to imminent danger or threat of
danger.37

h) Providing for additional paid leave of absence from work up to ten (10) days
in addition to other paid leaves under the Labor Code and Civil Service
Rules and Regulations, extendible when necessary.38

Of all the reliefs under Republic Act No. 9262, the “most potent
weapon” of battered women, as Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno calls it, is the
protection order.

The succeeding paragraphs will provide a survey and comparative

analysis of different laws on violence against women from different legal
systems. This will provide a holistic perspective on the very idea of
protection order and to illustrate that it is not only the international
community but also the municipal laws of other jurisdictions which
recognize the importance of urgency in providing adequate relief for victims
of domestic violence.

III. THE RELIEF OF PROTECTION ORDER

The Anti-VAWC Act provides an immediate relief to victim-

survivors of domestic violence in the Philippines. Chief Justice Reynato S.
Puno, in his speech, described the protection order as the “principal
weapon” of the victim of domestic violence.39 He said that in including such
TPO in the law, “we have joined the more advanced countries of the world
in trusting our criminal justice system to give relief to victims of domestic
violence.”40

The U.S. courts, which have been issuing emergency Temporary

Restraining Orders (TROs) to protect battered women since the 1970s, are
ahead of our jurisdiction in addressing the need for swift action on domestic

Rep. Act No. 9262, §34 (2004).

35

Rep. Act No. 9262, § 44 (2004).

36

Rep. Act No. 9262, §38 (2004).

37
38 Rep. Act No. 9262, §43 (2004). The Civil Service Commission has a circular enforcing the 15-day paid leave for

VAW survivors who are government employees, but the private sector has not followed suit.
39 Speech by Chief Justice R. Puno, Launching of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children (2004).
40 Id.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 325

violence. Using the criteria in the case of Blazel v. Bradley41 which will be
discussed in the later sections, the ex parte TPO under the Anti-VAWC Act
does not violate the due process clause. It allows only a judge to determine
the issuance of an ex parte TPO. It provides for a post-deprivation hearing
(filing of an Opposition, preliminary conference and hearing on the merits)
within a given period. It requires a verified petition based on personal
knowledge and containing specific allegations of what happened, where,
when and who did what to whom.

The United States enacted the Violence Against Women Act in

1994,42 a Federal law. It was referred to as the US’ first attempt at a multi-
pronged legal response to the epidemic of violence against women.43 This
lengthy and wide-ranging legislation has subsequently been amended,
reauthorized, and expanded.44 It remains both a practical tool for dealing
with violence against women and a symbol of national commitment to
eradicate the problem.45

Rutgers University School of Law Professor Sally F. Goldfarb wrote:

The statute authorized the appropriation of 1.62 billion dollars in

federal funds to support a broad range of programs, including training
of police, prosecutors, and judges; support of battered women’s shelters, community
domestic violence projects, and rape prevention programs; creation of a national
toll- free domestic violence telephone hotline; and research and data collection. The
requirements imposed on grant recipients were devised to serve a
variety of goals, such as improving outreach to victims in
underserved minority populations and encouraging government
agencies to collaborate with non-governmental organizations. The
outpouring of federal funds triggered by VAWA has had enormous
positive impact.46 (Emphasis supplied)

Under this law, a protection order is also provided for victims of

domestic violence. It includes:

(A) any injunction, restraining order, or any other order issued by a

civil or criminal court for the purpose of preventing violent or

41 Blazel v. Bradley, 698 F.Supp. 756, 57 USLW 2359, (1988) [hereinafter referred to as Blazel v. Bradley].
42 U.S. Violence Against Women Act, Public Law 103-322 (1994).
43 Sally F. Goldfarb, ‘The Legal Response to Violence Against Women in the United States of America: Recent Reforms and
Continuing Challenges’ (2008), available at
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/expertpapers/EGMGPLVAW%20Paper%20(Sally%20
Goldfarb).pdf.
44 Id, at 1.
45 Id.
46 Id. at 3.
326 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
threatening acts or harassment against, sexual violence or contact or
communication with or physical proximity to, another person,
including any temporary or final orders issued by civil or criminal
courts whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a
pendente lite order in another proceeding so long as any civil order was
issued in response to a complaint, petition, or motion filed by or on
behalf of a person seeking protection; and

(B) any support, child custody or visitation provisions, orders,

remedies, or relief issued as part of a protection order, restraining
order, or stay away injunction pursuant to State, tribal, territorial, or
local law authorizing the issuance of protection orders, restraining
orders, or injunctions for the protection of victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.47

Goldfarb also enumerates the contents of a TPO and wrote:

A number of features make these orders particularly useful. A

protection order can be obtained in a self-contained legal proceeding,
without initiating any other legal action such as a divorce or criminal
prosecution. A temporary order can be granted on an ex parte,
expedited basis, after which a final order may be granted following
notice to the respondent and a hearing. In some jurisdictions,
emergency orders are available all day and night, seven days a week.
The procedure for obtaining an order is usually designed to be simple
enough for a victim to proceed without an attorney, but legal
representation improves a victim’s chances of obtaining a favorable
outcome.48

Enacting laws prohibiting domestic violence and giving survivors

remedies and punishing perpetrators is an important step towards
eliminating violence against women. As of 2006, eighty-nine States have
some legislative provisions that specifically address domestic violence. Of
these, sixty (60) States have specific domestic violence laws; seven have
violence against women laws; fourteen (14) have specific provisions on
domestic violence in their penal codes; five have civil procedures for the
removal of perpetrators; and one State addresses domestic violence through
its family law. There are 102 States that have no known specific legal
provisions on domestic violence.49

47 U.S. Violence Against Women Act, Public Law 103-322, §20 (1994).
48 Goldfarb, supra note 38.
49 Study of the United Nations Secretary General: ‘Ending Violence Against Women: From Words to Action’ at 113 (2006).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 327

A. PROTECTION ORDERS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Section 8(k) of The Anti-VAWC Act states that courts may provide
“other forms of relief as it [the court] deems necessary to protect and
provide for the safety of the petitioner and any designated family or
household member.” To help the courts determine what other reliefs may
be included in the protection order, the following is an enumeration of
domestic violence laws of several countries and the salient features of their
protection order. These may be useful for judges especially that Section 4 of
The Anti-VAWC Act provides that the Act shall be “liberally construed to
promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and
their children, and Section 8 which provides that protection orders “should
serve the purpose of safeguarding the victim from further harm, minimizing
any disruption in the victim’s daily life, and facilitating the opportunity and
ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life.” It is
worthy to note that some Family Court Judges have issued TPOs which
grant battered women relief outside of the list in The Anti-VAWC Act, such
as an order to the banks not to allow the withdrawal of funds in the name of
the petitioner and respondent or the respondent alone, so as to answer for
the award of support pendente lite, and an order addressed to the Register of
Deeds not to allow the transfer of title of conjugal or community property
of the spouses if the woman does not personally appear before the Registrar
to affix her signature, to avoid forgery and dissipation of the property
pending litigation. In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that a
protection order may be issued against the respondent husband and other
persons because they conspired to commit violence against the woman.50

1. Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act

of 2000 (South Africa)51

The Parliament of the Republic of South Africa enacted this law,

which was accordingly signed by the President Nelson Mandela so as to
“prevent and prohibit unfair discrimination and harassment; to promote
equality and eliminate unfair discrimination; to prevent and prohibit hate
speech; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”52

50 A Motion for Reconsideration is pending.

51 South Africa Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Act No. 4 (2000).
52 South Africa Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Act No. 4 (2000).
328 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
The law expressly prohibits unfair discrimination on ground of
gender. It states:

Subject to section 6, no person may unfairly discriminate against any

person on the ground of gender, including—

(a) gender-based violence:

(b) female genital mutilation;

(c) the system of preventing women from inheriting family property;

(d) any practice, including traditional, customary or religious practice,

which impairs the dignity of women and undermines equality
between women and men, including the undermining of the dignity
and well-being of the girl child;

(e) any policy or conduct that unfairly limits access of women to land rights,
finance, and other resources;

(f) discrimination on the ground of pregnancy;

(g) limiting women’s access to social services or benefits, such as

health, education and social security;

(h) the denial of access to opportunities, including access to services

or contractual opportunities for rendering services for consideration,
or failing to the steps to reasonably accommodate the needs of such
persons;

(i) systemic inequality of access to opportunities by women as a result

of the sexual division of labour.53 (Emphasis supplied)

Complaints for violations of this Act may be brought in the equality

court. It is mandated that “the equality court before which proceedings are
instituted in terms of or under this Act must hold an inquiry in the
prescribed manner and determine whether unfair discrimination, hate speech
or harassment, as the case may be, has taken place, as alleged.”54

The reliefs provided in the Act are more plentiful as compared to

the reliefs provided in Republic Act No. 9262. The South African legislation
provides that:

53 South Africa Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Act No. 4, §8 (2000).
54 South Africa Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Act No. 4, §21(1) (2000).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 329

21. (2) After holding an inquiry, the court may make an appropriate
order in the circumstances, including—

(a) an interim order;

(b) a declaratory order:

(c) an order making a settlement between the parties to the

proceedings an order of court;
…
(e) after hearing the views of the parties or, in the absence of the
respondent, the views of the complainant in the matter, an order for
the payment of damages in the form of an award to an appropriate
body or organization;
…
(g) an order to make specific opportunities and privileges unfairly
denied in the circumstances, available to the complainant in question;

(h) an order for the implementation of special measures to address

the unfair discrimination, hate speech or harassment in question;

(i) an order directing the reasonable accommodation of a group or

class of persons by the respondent;

(j) an order that an unconditional apology be made;

(k) an order requiring the respondent to undergo an audit of specific

policies or practices as determined by the court:

(1) an appropriate order of a deterrent nature, including the

recommendation to the appropriate authority, to suspend or revoke
the license of a person;

(m) a directive requiring the respondent to make regular progress

reports to the court or to the relevant constitutional institution
regarding the implementation of the court’s order;

(n) an order directing the clerk of the equality court to submit the
matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions having jurisdiction for
the possible institution of criminal proceedings in terms of the
common law or relevant legislation;

The prohibition against unfair discrimination on ground of gender

in this Act was rooted in the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 which expressly prohibit discrimination.

The concept of unfair discrimination does not mean that to

guarantee equality, the law must have the same treatment for all, men and
330 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
women alike. The Supreme Court of South Africa had the occasion to rule
on the meaning of equality in Hugo v. President of the Republic of South Africa.55
The petitioner was a prisoner serving an effective sentence of 15 years and
six months, who had a son who was born in December 1982 and whose
wife had died in 1987. In June 1994, the President of South Africa signed
Presidential Act 17 of 1994 where a special remission of the remainder of
their sentences was granted to certain categories of prisoners, including
persons described as “all mothers in prison on May 10, 1994 with minor
children under the age of 12 years.”

Since petitioner Hugo did not fall within any of the categories, he
launched an application against President Nelson Mandela and the Minister
of Correctional Services for an order of his immediate release from prison.
Hugo reasoned that the mentioned portion of the Presidential Act was
unconstitutional for being discriminatory on the ground of gender, favoring
mothers only.

The reason of the President for issuing the Presidential Act was that
it would serve the interests of the children, stating that mothers are,
generally speaking, primarily responsible for the care of small children. The
Court acknowledged that rationale of the President as a fact, which is one of
the root causes of women’s inequality in society.

The Court dismissed the petition, stating that:

It is not enough for appellants to say that the impact of the

discrimination in the case under consideration affected members of a
group that were not historically disadvantaged. They must still show
in the context of this particular case that the impact of the
discrimination on the people who were discriminated against was not
unfair. … We need, therefore, to develop a concept of unfair discrimination which
recognizes that although a society which affords each human being equal treatment
on the basis of equal worth and freedom is our goal, we cannot achieve that goal by
insisting upon identical treatment in all circumstances before that goal is achieved.
Each case, therefore, will require a careful and thorough understanding of the
impact of the discriminatory action upon the particular people concerned to
determine whether its overall impact is one which furthers the constitutional goal of
equality or not.56

The test used by the Court to determine if the impact was unfair was
two fold: a) to look not only at the group who has been disadvantaged but at

55 Hugo v. President of the Republic of South Africa, Case CCT 11/96, (1997) [hereinafter referred to as Hugo v.

President of the Republic of South Africa].

56 Hugo v. President of the Republic of South Africa.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 331

the nature of the power in terms of which the discrimination was effected
and, b) the nature of the interests which have been affected by the
discrimination.57

Using its scrutiny test, the Court found that it would have been
impossible for the President to release all the fathers in prison as well as the
mothers. Male prisoners outnumber female prisoners almost fifty fold, and
the release of male prisoners would have caused a public outcry. It stated
that, “As many fathers play only a secondary role in child rearing, the release
of male prisoners would not have contributed as significantly to the
achievement of the President’s purpose as the release of mothers… In the
circumstances it must be accepted that it would have been very difficult, if
not impossible, for the President to have released fathers on the same basis
as mothers. Were he obliged to release fathers on the same terms as
mothers, the result may have been that no parents would have been released
at all.”58 The Court said that fathers could apply for remission of sentence
on an individual basis and concluded that: “the Presidential Act may have
denied them an opportunity it afforded women, but it cannot be said that it
fundamentally impaired their rights of dignity or sense of equal worth. The
impact upon the relevant fathers was therefore…not unfair.”59

2. Protection Against Domestic Violence Act (Bulgaria)60

This law governs the rights of individuals having suffered from

domestic violence, the protection measures, and the procedure applicable to
the imposition of such measures.61

The protection measures that may be granted under this law shall
include any of the following:

…placing the respondent under an obligation to attend specialised

programmes; advising the victims to attend recovery programmes.62

57 Hugo v. President of the Republic of South Africa.

58 Hugo v. President of the Republic of South Africa, at 48.
59 Hugo v. President of the Republic of South Africa, at 49.
60 Bulgaria Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, State Gazette Issue No. 27, (2005).
61 Bulgaria Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, State Gazette Issue No. 27, §1(1) (2005).
62 Bulgaria Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, State Gazette Issue No. 27, § 5(1) (2005).
332 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
Under this law, the regional courts in Bulgaria, sitting ex parte and in
camera, shall issue an emergency protection order within 24 hours from
receipt of the application or request if the application or request contains
data concerning a direct and impending threat to the life or health of the
victim.63 The police authorities shall see to it that the protection order is
properly executed.64

In cases where data exists showing a direct and imminent threat to

the life or health of the victim, the latter may file an application with the
police authorities for the imposition of emergency measures and the bodies
of the Ministry of Interior shall forward to the court the application
together with the explanations of the respondent, if such explanations have
been provided, and the record drawn of any measures imposed, while
depicting the circumstances that call for emergency court protection.65

The law of Bulgaria allows the police to take emergency measures by removing
the batterer from the survivor’s home. The Austrian Federal Law on Protection
against Family Violence66 also provides for power of the police to
immediately evict and bar the batterer from the victim’s home for 10 to 20
days. If there is a need to extend the period, the victim can go to court to
get a protective temporary injunction against her batterer.

Germany has a similar legal provision authorizing the police to evict

the batterer in its Act to Improve Civil Court Protection Against Acts of
Violence and Unwelcome Advances as well as to Facilitate the Allocation of
the Marital Dwelling in the event of Separation.67

3. Integrated Protection Against Gender-Based Violence (Spain)68

Spain’s Ley Integral introduces new measures for the protection,

prevention, support and recuperation of the victims of gender-based
violence.69 It covers education, social issues, care and assistance for victims
and children, civil regulations concerning the family and cohabitation, and
punishment and education through the penal system.

63 Bulgaria Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, State Gazette Issue No. 27, § 18(1) (2005).
64 Bulgaria Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, State Gazette Issue No. 27, § 21 (2005).
65 Bulgaria Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, State Gazette Issue No. 27, § 4(2) (2005).
66 Austrian Federal Law on Protection against Family Violence (1996).
67 Germany Act to Improve Civil Court Protection Against Acts of Violence and Unwelcome Advances as well as to

Facilitate the Allocation of the Marital Dwelling in the event of Separation (2002).
68 Spain Integrated Protection Against Gender-Based Violence, Organic Law 1/2004,(2004).
69 Daniel Albarracin, ‘New gender-based violence law has workplace implications’ (2008) available at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/01/feature/es0501105f.htm.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 333

Although The Anti-VAWC Act provides that the survivor shall have
a ten-day paid leave in addition to other paid leave,70 the domestic violence
law of Spain includes a number of measures related to employment which
the Anti-VAWC Act does not have. These measures include:

…victims of gender-based violence will have rights in terms of

absence from work, geographical mobility within their job and
suspension of the employment contract with a right to return;

…victims may join a specific programme for integration in

employment (specially created if necessary), with financial assistance,
in order to protect both the victims and children who are indirect
victims of the violence;

…the social security rights and benefits of workers who are victims
of gender-based violence will be preserved, whether they are wage-
earners or self-employed. In the case of the former, if they stop
working in order to protect themselves or use their right to integrated
social care, their obligation to pay contributions will be suspended for a period of
six months, which will be considered as a period during which contributions have
been paid for the purposes of social security benefits, and they will continue to
be considered as contributors to the system. In the case of the latter,
the period of suspension of employment with a right to return will be
considered as a period in which contributions have been paid for the
purposes of retirement, permanent disability, death or survival,
maternity and unemployment benefits; and

…where employers use 'internship' contracts to replace workers who

have suspended their employment contract or exercised their right to
a change of location or workplace because they are victims of gender-
based violence, they will receive a 100% subsidy of their general
social security contributions in respect of the replacement worker.
The contributions will be subsidised during the full period of
suspension of the replaced worker's contract, or six months in cases
of geographic mobility or change of workplace.71

4. Law on Access of Women to a Life Free of Violence (Mexico)72

This law aims to guarantee women’s “access to a life free of violence

that favors their development and well-being according to the principles of
equality and nondiscrimination.”73

70 Rep. Act No. 9262, §43 (2004).

71 Rep. Act No. 9262, §43 (2004).
72 E. Eduardo Castillo, ‘Mexico Enacts Law on Domestic Violence’ (2008), available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com./wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101658.html.
334 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
The law also spells out the authorities’ obligations to issue
“emergency protection orders” to help victims of violence, including
removing aggressors from homes in domestic violence cases, suspending
attackers’ visits to children and freezing assets to guarantee alimony
payments.74

5. The Summary Jurisdiction (Domestic Violence) Law (Cayman

Islands)75

This Law provides domestic orders and interim domestic orders

akin to a protection order. The Law provides:

3) If on an application for an order under this section a magistrate is

satisfied -- that --

…the respondent has used violence against the applicant or a child of

the family; or

…the respondent has threatened to use violence against the applicant

or a child of the family and has used violence against some other
person; or

…the respondent has in contravention of an order made under

subsection (2) threatened to use violence against the applicant or a
child of the family; and

…that the applicant or a child of the family is in danger of being

physically injured by the respondent (or would be in such danger if
the applicant or child were to enter the matrimonial home),

…the magistrate may make one or both of the following orders, that
is to say an order requiring the respondent to leave the matrimonial
home; or an order prohibiting the respondent from entering the
matrimonial home.

The expiry of an interim domestic order does not prejudice the

making of another interim domestic order.76 A magistrate may include in an
order a provision that the respondent must not incite or assist any other
person to use, or threaten to use, violence against the applicant or, as the
case may be, a child of the family.77

73 Id.
74 Id.
75 Cayman Islands The Summary Jurisdiction (Domestic Violence) Law, Law No. 20 of 1992 (1992).
76 Cayman Islands The Summary Jurisdiction (Domestic Violence) Law, Law No. 20 of 1992, § 4(4) (1992).
77 Cayman Islands The Summary Jurisdiction (Domestic Violence) Law, Law No. 20 of 1992, § 5(2) (1992).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 335

The law also provides that:

8. (1) If an order contains a provision that the respondent must not –

(a) use violence against the applicant; or

(b) use violence against a child of the family; or

(c) enter the matrimonial home,

a police officer may arrest the respondent without warrant if he has

reasonable cause for suspecting that the respondent is in breach of
any such provision.

(2) Whether or not an order contains any of the provisions referred

to in subsection (1), a police officer may arrest the respondent
without warrant if the police officer has reasonable grounds for
believing that arrest is necessary–

(a) to prevent the respondent, in furtherance of his domestic dispute

with the applicant from –

(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person; or

(ii) suffering physical injury; or

(iii) causing loss or damage to property; or

(iv) committing an offence against public decency; or

(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway; or

(b) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the respondent

when continuing his domestic dispute with the applicant.78
(Emphasis supplied)

The second paragraph of the abovementioned section allows the

warrantless arrest of the respondent on certain situations that are not found
in R.A. No. 9262.

6. The Domestic Violence Act of 1994 (Malaysia)

Under this law, the court may issue an interim protection order
during the pendency of investigations relating to the commission of an

78 Cayman Islands The Summary Jurisdiction (Domestic Violence) Law, Law No. 20 of 1992, §§8(1)-(2) (1992).
336 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
offense involving domestic violence, which prohibits the person against
whom the order is made from using domestic violence against his or her
spouse or former spouse or a child or an incapacitated adult or any member
of the family, as the case may be, as specified in the order.79

The court may, in proceedings involving a complaint of domestic

violence, issue any one or more of the following protection orders:

(a) A protection order restraining the person against whom the order
is made from using domestic violence against the complainant;

(b) A protection order restraining the person against whom the order
is made from using domestic violence against the child;

(c) A protection order restraining the person against whom the order
is made from using the domestic violence against the incapacitated
adult.80

The following may be included in the protection orders:

…
(e) requiring the person against whom the order is made to permit
any protected person to have the continued use of a vehicle which
has previously been ordinarily used by the protected person or
persons;

(f) the giving of any such direction as is necessary and incidental for
the proper carrying into the effect of any order made under any of
the above mentioned paragraphs,

(g) to have effect for such period, not exceeding twelve months from
the date of the commencement of such orders, as may be specified in
the protection order.81

In contravention of the protection order:

(1) Any person who willfully contravenes a protection order or any

provision thereof shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on
conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding two thousand ringgit or
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

(2) Any person who willfully contravenes a protection order by using

violence on a protected person shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine
not exceeding four thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding one year or both.

79 Malaysia Domestic Violence Act of 1994, part 2 §4 (1994).

80 Malaysia Domestic Violence Act of 1994, part 2 §5 (1994).
81 Malaysia Domestic Violence Act of 1994, part 2 §6(f) (1994).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 337

(3) Any person who is convicted for a second or subsequent violation

of a protection order under subsection (2) shall be punished with
imprisonment for a period of not less than seventy-two months and
not more than two years, and shall also be liable to a fine not
exceeding five thousand ringgit.

(4) For the purposes of this section a "protection order" includes an

interim protection order.82

In contrast, The Anti-VAWC Act does not provide a punishment for a

second or subsequent violation of a protection order.

7. Protection from Domestic Violence Act 1997 (Mauritius)

Under this Act, a protection order means an interim or permanent

protection order restraining a spouse from engaging on conduct which may
constitute an act of domestic violence.83

On an application being made for a protection order, the court shall

cause notice thereof to be served on the respondent spouse who shall
further be summoned to appear before Court on such day as may be fixed
by the Court (not later than 7 days of the date of the application) to show
cause why the order applied for should not be made.84

The Law further provides that:

(3) An application for a protection order shall be heard as a civil case

between the parties who shall be free to call witnesses in support of
their respective case.

(4) In determining an application for a protection order, the court

shall have regard to the following:

(a) the need to ensure that the aggrieved spouse is protected from
domestic violence;

(b) the welfare of any child affected or likely to be affected, by the

respondent spouse’s conduct;

(c) the accommodation needs of the aggrieved spouse, his children as

well as those of the respondent and his children;

82 Malaysia Domestic Violence Act of 1994, part 2 §8(4) (1994).

83 Mauritius Protection from Domestic Violence Act of 1997, §2 (1997).
84 Mauritius Protection from Domestic Violence Act of 1997, §3(2) (1997).
338 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
(d) any hardship that may be caused to the respondent spouse or to
any of his children as a result of the making of the order;

(e) any other matter which the Court may consider relevant.85

Where a protection order is issued, the court may further:

(e) prohibit the respondent spouse from damaging property of the

aggrieved spouse;

(f) prohibit the respondent spouse from causing or attempting to

cause another person to engage in conduct referred to in paragraphs
(d) and (e);

(g) specify the conditions on which the respondent spouse may:

(i) be on premises on which the aggrieved spouse resides, works or

which he frequents; or

(ii) approach or contact the aggrieved spouse or a child of the

aggrieved spouse;

(h) proprio motu, make a provisional occupation or tenancy order for

such time as it thinks fit, where it is satisfied that such an order,
although not applied for, is essential for the effective protection of
the aggrieved person.86

8. Domestic Violence Act of 1991 (Trinidad and Tobago)87

Subject to this Act, a protection order may:

(f) where the order contains a prohibition of the kind referred to in

paragraph (d) relating to conduct of an offensive or harassing nature
that amounts to willful or reckless neglect of a child or dependent
person -- direct the respondent to ensure that reasonable care is
provided in respect of that child or dependent person;
…
(i) prohibit the respondent from causing another person to engage in
the conduct referred to in paragraph (d), (e) or (g);

(j) specify conditions subject to which the respondent may be on

premises or in a locality specified in the order;

85 Mauritius Protection from Domestic Violence Act of 1997, §3(4) (1997).

86 Mauritius Protection from Domestic Violence Act of 1997, §3(5) (1997).
87 Trinidad and Tobago Domestic Violence Act, Act No. 10 of 1991 (1991).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 339

(k) direct that the applicant or respondent, or both, seek appropriate

counseling or therapy from a person or agency approved by the
Minister in writing.88

Where the Court proposes to make a protection order or an interim

protection order and the respondent is before the Court, the Court shall
before making the order explain to the respondent:

(a) the purpose, terms and effect of the proposed order;

(b) the consequences that may follow if the respondent fails to

comply with the terms of the proposed order; and

(c) the means by which the proposed order may be varied or

revoked.89

Where a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person

has committed or is committing an offense under this Act, he shall make an
arrest without warrant.90

9. Domestic Violence Act of 1995 (New Zealand)

Under this Act, the standard conditions of a protection order are:

(1) It is a condition of every protection order that the respondent

must not---

(a) Physically or sexually abuse the protected person; or

(b) Threaten to physically or sexually abuse the protected person; or

(c) Damage, or threaten to damage, property of the protected person;

or

(d) Engage, or threaten to engage, in other behaviour, including,

intimidation or harassment, which amounts to psychological abuse of
the protected person; or

(e) Encourage any person to engage in behaviour against a protected

person, where the behaviour, if engaged in by the respondent, would
be prohibited by the order.

88 Trinidad and Tobago Domestic Violence Act, Act No. 10 of 1991, part II §5 (1991).
89 Trinidad and Tobago Domestic Violence Act, Act No. 10 of 1991, part II §15 (1991).
90 Trinidad and Tobago Domestic Violence Act, Act No. 10 of 1991, part IV §22 (1991).
340 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
(2) Without limiting subsection (1) of this section, but subject to
section 20 of this Act, it is a condition of every protection order that
at any time other than when the protected person and the respondent
are, with the express consent of the protected person, living in the
same dwelling house, the respondent must not --
…
(e) Make any other contact with the protected person (whether by
telephone, correspondence, or otherwise), except such contact---

(i) As is reasonably necessary in any emergency; or

(ii) As is permitted under any order or written agreement relating to

custody of, or access to, any minor; or

(iii) As is permitted under any special condition of the protection

order; or

(iv) As is necessary for the purposes of attending a family group

conference within the meaning of section 2 of the Children, Young
Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

(3) Where, pursuant to a direction made under section 17 of this Act,

a protection order applies against an associated respondent, the
provisions of this section apply, with all necessary modifications, in
respect of the associated respondent.91

Where the Court makes a protection order, that order applies for the
benefit of any child of the applicant’s family.92 And when the Court makes a
protection order against the respondent, the Court may also direct that the
order apply against a person whom the respondent is encouraging, or has
encouraged to engage in a behavior against a protected person, where that
behavior, if engaged in by the respondent, would amount to domestic
violence.93

Under this law, a Court must not decline to make a protection order
merely because of the existence of other proceedings (including, but not
limited to, proceedings relating to custody of, or access to, a minor) between
or relating to the parties, whether or not those proceedings also relate to any
other person.94

91 New Zealand Domestic Violence Act, part II §19 (1995).

92 New Zealand Domestic Violence Act, part II §16 (1995).
93 New Zealand Domestic Violence Act, part II §17 (1995).
94 New Zealand Domestic Violence Act, part II §15 (1995).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 341

10. Law on Development and Protection of Women (Lao PDR)95

Under this Law, women and children who are victims of domestic
violence have the right to “to seek assistance from other family members,
neighbors, relatives or report to village authorities aiming at educating the
violators, stopping the violence and changing bad behavior for the family to
be the one of concord and happiness. In case of domestic violence resulting
in serious impact constituting a criminal offense, the victim has the right to
report to police officials for remedies in accordance with regulations and
laws.”96 Women and children also have the right to access to counseling,
legal consultation, physical and mental treatment, and other services.97

If the violence is not serious, mediation98 and education of the

abuser by the family, neighbors, consultation units, and village mediation
units can be done to settle domestic violence disputes.99 If mediation is
unsuccessful or if the violence is extremely serious, the police authorities
shall institute legal proceedings and if there is strong evidence regarding the
violence and that it amounts to an offense, the police shall investigate the
case and send relevant data to a prosecutor to initiate the case in court.100

In Asia, only Lao PDR, India and the Philippines have a gender-specific anti-
domestic violence law, which is recognition of the fact that domestic violence is
gender-based violence, committed against women because they are
subordinated as women. This is notwithstanding the CEDAW Committee’s
Recommendation No. 19 which defines domestic violence as gender-based
violence and gender discrimination.

11. Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (United Kingdom)101

This Act criminalizes the breach of non-molestation orders under

the United Kingdom’s Family Law Act of 1996 and makes common assault
an offense which can cause the arrest of the aggressor.

95 Law on Development and Protection of Women (Lao PDR), No. 08/NA (2004), available at
http://www.mfa.gov.sg/vientiane/Laws/Women%20and%20Children%20Law%20&%20Decree%20FINAL.pdf.
96 Law on Development and Protection of Women (Lao PDR), No. 08/NA, art. 33 (2004).
97 Law on Development and Protection of Women (Lao PDR), No. 08/NA, art. 38 (2004).
98 Mediation is not an option in the Philippine legal system. It is precisely the situation that ANTI-VAWC ACT seeks

to avoid i.e. when the woman is forced by either a technicality or an “appeal” to her “sense of family” to forgo her right to
litigate and ultimately her right to a violence-free life.
99 Law on Development and Protection of Women (Lao PDR), No. 08/NA, art. 35 (2004).
100 Law on Development and Protection of Women (Lao PDR), No. 08/NA, art. 36 (2004).
101 United Kingdom Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004).
342 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
The Act also extends the availability of restraining orders under the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In this law, courts can consider
making a restraining order even when a person has been acquitted of an
offense, where the court believes a restraining order is necessary to protect a
person from harassment.102

IV. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

Since The Anti-VAWC Act is gender-specific, its far-reaching

implications are bound to precipitate reactions and criticism as it gains
widespread application. It will inevitably be pitted against the fundamental
laws that bind the Philippine legal framework. The availability of ex parte
TPOs alone incites objections by lawyers, even judges, who lack the
understanding that violence against women is a public crime, not a private
matter, and a hearing on the TPO will only delay the relief and give an
opportunity for the respondent to retaliate. Long conditioned by a
patriarchal culture and the lack of a law on domestic violence, judges need a
paradigm shift and seminars on gender in order to be able to fully enforce
the law.

Not surprisingly, it was not long before a petition for review was
filed in August 2007 by a husband against whom a TPO was issued
challenging the very validity of the law itself even as it tries to carve out a
niche as a breakthrough mechanism for the protection of rights of women
and children.

The constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9262 which took effect on

27 March 2004, is a novel and transcendental issue which is of great
importance not only to Filipino women and children but also to advocates
of women’s human rights all over the world. Several arguments have been
posed against its constitutionality most especially with regard to the issue of
due process and equal protection, and undue delegation of judicial power to
barangay officials. One of the main purposes of this article is precisely to
address these constitutional issues and to explain that the framework of The
Anti-VAWC Act was in fact pursuant to a constitutional mandate which is
the protection of women and their children, guarantee fundamental equality
of women and men before the law, and in compliance with the Republic of
the Philippines’ State Obligation under the CEDAW to prevent VAW,
ensure women’s rights to substantive equality and eliminate gender
discrimination.

102 United Kingdom Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, §§12-13 (2004).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 343

A. THE ANTI-VAWC ACT HAS IN ITS FAVOR THE PRESUMPTION OF

CONSTITUTIONALITY

It must be stressed that The Anti-VAWC Act has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality.

Every law is presumed to be valid and constitutional until the

contrary is shown. All doubts are resolved in favor of the validity of the
act.103 This presumption is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers
which enjoins upon the three coordinate departments of the Government a
becoming courtesy for each other's acts. The theory is that every law, being
the joint act of the Legislature and the Executive, has passed careful scrutiny
to ensure that it is in accord with the fundamental law [Cawaling vs.
Commission on Elections, et al.,104 Garcia vs. Executive Secretary,105 Philippine Judges
Association vs. Prado106]. Because of this presumption of validity of laws, the
principle laid down in Tan vs. Bausch & Lomb, Inc107 is that, “unless a law or
rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity
stands.”

Legislators, as well as judges, are bound to obey and support the

Constitution, and it is to be understood that lawmakers have weighed the
constitutional validity of every act they pass. Hence, the presumption is
always in favor of the constitutionality of a statute; every reasonable doubt
must be resolved in favor of the statute, not against it; and the courts will
not adjudge it invalid unless its violation of the Constitution is, in their
judgment, clear, complete and unmistakable.108

If the law is fairly and reasonably open to more than one

construction, what must be adopted is the construction which will reconcile
the statute with the Constitution and avoid the consequence of
unconstitutionality.109 The Supreme Court quoted Black on Interpretation
of Laws:

In construing a doubtful or ambiguous statute, the courts will

presume that it was the intention of the legislature to enact a valid,

103 See Alvarez v. Guingona, G.R. No. 118303, 252 SCRA 706, Jan. 31, 1996, and Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649,

197 SCRA 68, May 14, 1991.

104 Cawaling v. COMELEC, et. al., G.R. No. 146319, 368 SCRA 456-457, Oct. 26, 2001.
105 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 100883, 204 SCRA 523, Dec. 2, 1991.
106 Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, 227 SCRA 705, Nov. 11, 1993.
107 Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., G.R. No. 148420, 478 SCRA 123-124, Dec. 15, 2005.
108 Francisco, V. J., Statutory Construction, 244 (1968), citing Black on Interpretation of Laws 110 (2nd Ed.).
109 Id, at 246.
344 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
sensible, and just law, and one which should change the prior law no
further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of
the act in question. The construction should be in harmony with this
assumption whenever possible.110

Hence it follows that the courts will not so construe the law as to
make it conflict with the constitution, but will rather put such an
interpretation upon it as will avoid conflict with the constitution and
give it full force and effect, if this can be done without extravagance.
If there is doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning of the legislature, if
the words of provisions of the statute are obscure, or if the
enactment is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that
interpretation will be adopted which will avoid the effect of
unconstitutionality, even though it may be necessary, for this
purpose, to disregard the more usual or apparent import of the
language employed.111

The Supreme Court reiterated this in the case of People vs. Zeta,112
wherein the constitutionality of R.A. No. 145 was put into question when a
penal provision in the said law was alleged to be an infringement of the
constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The intent of the
legislature on whether the law would have a retroactive or prospective effect
was not clear. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No.
145 and ruled that:

(The law) should not be interpreted in a manner that would render its
application violative of a constitutional inhibition.

Strict construction to prevent retroactive operation has often been

applied in order that the statute would not violate contract
obligations or interfere with vested rights. The principal explanation
offered by the courts, however, is that the statute must be construed
so as to sustain its constitutionality and thus prospective operation
will be presumed where a retroactive operation would produce
invalidity (Sutherland Statutory Construction, Vol. 2, p. 135).113

B. R.A. NO. 9262 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION

CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION

An argument against the statute’s constitutionality is that it violates

the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Since oppositors of the law

110 Id at 78.
111 Id at 93.
112 People v. Zeta, G.R. No. L-7140, 98 Ph. 145, Dec. 22, 1955.
113 People v. Zeta, G.R. No. L-7140, 98 Ph. 147, Dec. 22, 1955.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 345

are invoking a fundamental right as basis for their dissent, such will be
addressed if only to put matters to rest once and for all.

The Anti-VAWC Act does not violate the Equal Protection clause.
The main consideration in achieving full equality before the law is not
sameness in treatment but the impact of the law on the individual or group
concerned. The concept of equality does not mean the same treatment, but
an equality in outcome or results, which is called “substantive equality” by
the CEDAW Committee. In the Constitution, this is evident in the
provision on fundamental equality before the law of women and men.114

Substantive equality is defined by the CEDAW Committee as that

which:

[R]equires that women be given an equal start and that they be

empowered by an enabling environment to achieve equality of
results. It is not enough to guarantee women treatment that is
identical to that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and
culturally constructed differences between women and men must be
taken in to account. Under certain circumstances, non-identical
treatment of women and men will be required in order to address
such differences.115

The Committee further explains –

Equality of results is the logical corollary of de facto or substantive

equality. These results may be quantitative and/or qualitative in
nature, that is, women enjoying their rights in various fields in fairly
equal numbers with men, enjoying the same income levels, equality in
decision-making and political influence, and women enjoying
freedom from violence.116

To further elucidate the concept of substantive equality, it is

important to discuss the distinction between the different equality models or
approaches and their implication to women’s human rights, in general, and
women’s human right to equality with men and human right to freedom
from violence, in particular.

114 CONST. (1987), art. II §14.

115 General Recommendation No.25, CEDAW/par. 8 (2004).
116 Id at par. 9.
346 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
1. Approaches to Equality

Women’s fight for equality throughout the years has evolved under
different models/ approaches to equality: (a) formal model of equality; (b)
the protectionist approach; and (c) the substantive model of equality.117

The formal equality model regards men and women as being the
same, thus, advocates of this model argue that men and women should,
therefore, be treated in like manner. The problem with this position is that it
ignores the biological and gender (social) differences between women and
men; and by failing to take into account these differences, a formal equality
approach may in fact perpetuate discrimination and disadvantage.118

The case of Bradwell vs. Illinois (1873) is an illustration of how a

formal model in equality could perpetuate discrimination and disadvantage.
In the said case, the US Supreme Court upheld a U.S. law that prevented
women from entering the legal profession by rejecting the claim of Bradwell,
a female attorney, that the law was a violation of her right to equality and
discriminatory on the basis of her sex. According to the Supreme Court –

(M)an is or should be woman’s protector and defender. The natural

and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex
evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life…The
paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and
benign office of wife and mother.119

The formal equality model, thus, is (1) either blind to the differences
between men and women, and therefore, treats them in the same manner; or
(2) justifies differential treatment between the two that results to further
discrimination. Either way, formal equality merely perpetuates prior
disadvantage and vulnerabilities, leading to further inequality.

The protectionist approach, on the other hand, recognizes

differences between men and women but it regards these differences as
weaknesses or inferiority of women, thus the need to protect women. An
example of this approach is illustrated by legislations prohibiting night work
for women, in order to protect women from the unsafe environment at

117 Savitri W.E. Goonesekere, ‘The Concept of Substantive Equality and Gender Justice in South Asia’ (2008), available at

http://www.unifem.org.in/PDF/The%20Concept%20of%20Substantive%20Equality%20-final%20-%2031-12-07.pdf
118 Fredman, S. and Spencer, S., “Beyond Discrimination: It’s Time for Enforceable Duties on Public Bodies to Promote Equality of

Outcomes”, E.H.R.L.R. Issue 6, 601 (2006).

119 Savitri W.E. Goonesekere, ‘The Concept of Substantive Equality and Gender Justice in South Asia’ 8 (2008), available at

http://www.unifem.org.in/PDF/The%20Concept%20of%20Substantive%20Equality%20-final%20-%2031-12-07.pdf, citing
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 446 (1873).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 347

night. This approach reinforces the inferior status of women and does not
address of the issue of discrimination of women on account of their gender.
Instead of addressing the problem of unsafe environment for women, the
protectionist approach in effect controls women.

The substantive equality model goes beyond the formal equality and
protectionist model. It proceeds from the assumption that women are “not
vulnerable by nature, but suffered from imposed disadvantage” and that “if
these imposed disadvantages were eliminated, there was no further need for
protection.”120 Thus, the substantive equality model gives prime importance
to women’s contexts, realities and experiences and the outcomes or results
of acts and measures directed, at or affecting them, with a view to
eliminating the disadvantages they experience as women.

A substantive equality model is a multi-dimensional approach to

equality, consisting of what Sandra Fredman121 termed as the “four equality
goals,”122 namely:

First, it should aim to break the cycle of disadvantage resulting from ongoing
discrimination against a group. Central to this is the need to facilitate
genuine choice by providing the resources necessary to give everyone
the possibility of making their own life choices. This is in effect a
deepened and more detailed concept of equality of opportunity.
Evidence of lack of equality in this sense is frequently provided by
differential outcomes, such as under-representation in a workforce or
under-achievement at school. Thus in many cases, correcting the
outcome will be a conclusive demonstration that opportunities have
been equalised. However, there may be other ways of taking steps to
break the cycle of disadvantage associated with groups which have traditionally
been the victims of discrimination. Measures addressing the division of
labour within the family would fall into this category.

A second aim of substantive equality is to promote respect for the equal

dignity and worth of all, redressing stigma, stereotyping, humiliation and
violence because of membership of a status group. Harassment,
homophobic bullying, domestic violence, degrading treatment of the
elderly, and hate crimes are all examples of breaches of this aspect of
equality.

Thirdly, equality duties should go beyond identical treatment in

meeting needs, to accommodate and affirm different identities, aspirations and

120 Goonesekere, supra note 111.

121 Sandra Fredman is a Professor of Law at Oxford University and Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford.
122 Goonesekere, supra note 111, at 603.
348 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
needs. Instead of expecting all to conform to the standard of the
majority or dominant group, equality duties should recognise and
uphold differing identities. This requires duties of accommodation,
which expressly require changes in apparently neutral criteria or
institutions in order to permit different identities to flourish. Thus,
while the concept of equality disallows detrimental treatment on
status-based grounds, it should affirm status-based difference where
this is part of an individual’s positive identity.

The final aim of equality is to facilitate full participation in society.

Procedurally, this refers to equality in decision-making. Measures
need to be taken to be sure that those whose voice has not been
heard because of previous discrimination and disadvantage have
equal rights to participate in decision-making, whether it be welfare,
socio-economic rights, employment rights or equality legislation.
Active participation of the groups in question is crucial if
intervention is to avoid being patronising, erroneous and unlikely to
succeed. (Emphasis supplied)

2. R.A. No. 9262 was Legislated Using the Substantive Equality

Framework

First, it was enacted pursuant to the state obligation of the Republic

of the Philippines under the CEDAW and other international instruments.
It was passed because of the state’s compelling interest to prevent and
address the serious problem of violence committed against women in the
context of intimate relationships – recognized all over the world as one of
the most insidious forms of gender discrimination which violate the rights of
women protected by the Constitution and international law such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.123 Although not a treaty, the
Declaration, as an authoritative listing of human rights, has become a basic
component of international customary law, binding all states.”124 R.A. No.
9262, therefore, falls under the State Policy in the Constitution which states
that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land.125

Second, The Anti-VAWC Act was legislated to impart the message,

once and for all, that violence against women in the context of intimate relations is a
serious human rights violation; it is not a private matter, it is a crime. The law aims to

123 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. GAOR, 3rd Sess., U.N. Doc. A/810 (1946).
124 Sohn, L., “The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals rather Than States,” 32 Am. U. L.

Rev. 1, 17 (1982), cited in Mackinnon, C., Sex Equality, 40 (2007).

125 CONST . (1987), art. II §2.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 349

promote the equality, dignity and human rights of women and children by
breaking the silence that surrounds this form of violence.

Third, The Anti-VAWC Act is grounded on the experiences of

women who are victims of spousal or partner-abuse. For instance, the acts
enumerated which the law considers as violence are based on actual stories
of women who have been abused by their intimate partners. The reliefs
made available to the women by the law are likewise consistent with the
rights of women as human beings under the Constitution, the CEDAW and
General Recommendations, the non-discrimination clause in the U.N.
Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Fourth, the Anti-VAWC Act was legislated in order to facilitate

women’s full participation in society. Violence against women had been held
to be insidious, because it violates a myriad of other rights simultaneously,
which in turn prevents women’s right to full participation in society. Women
who are victims of domestic violence are unable to fulfill their rights as equal human
beings, such as their “right to life, liberty and security of person” under Section 3 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, the law grants them
reliefs to ensure their right to equality, protection and personal safety. The
Anti-VAWC Act is a means by which women can fulfill and enjoy their rights
in all fields – civil, political, social, economic rights. The provision on
protection orders, for instance, was aimed precisely at “safeguarding the
victim from further harm, minimizing any disruption in the victim's daily
life, and facilitating the opportunity and ability of the victim to
independently regain control over her life.”126

Furthermore, the State has a compelling interest in enacting RA No.

9262. The compelling interest of the state in enacting the law, which is to
protect the rights of women and children to be free from abuse, and to
promote the right of fundamental equality of women and their right to
personal safety is based on the reality that domestic violence victimizes
women as a group, and when women are abused, their children are victims
also. In her sponsorship speech, Senator Eloisa Estrada127 acknowledged
that R.A. No. 9262 is an “offshoot of several initiatives in other countries
and the government’s commitment to put an end to domestic abuse, as
enshrined in various U.N. declarations, of which the Philippines is a
signatory.” She cited the statistics on battering of women. There is no
statistics to show that men as a group are also victims of domestic violence.

126 Rep. Act No. 9262, §8 (2004).

127 Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Women and Family in 2004.
350 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
The Senator cited the alarming statistics on domestic violence:

In fact, based on the reports of the Philippine National Police,

current official statistics on violence against women and children
show that physical injuries had the highest number of cases at 5,058
in 2002 representing 55.63% of total cases reported (9,903). For the
first semester of 2003, there were 2,381 reported cases out of 4,354
cases which represent 54.31%. If we examine the total number of
women in especially difficult circumstances served by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for the
year 2002, there are 1,417 physically abused/maltreated cases out of
the total 5,608 cases. Likewise, there are 1,091 DSWD cases out of a
total number of 3,471 cases for the first semester of 2003. Female
violence comprises (sic) more than 90% of all forms of abuse and
violence and more than 90% of these reported cases were committed
by the women’s intimate partners such as their husbands and live-in
partners.

Supreme Court rulings on equal protection support the equality

approach that recognizes substantial distinctions and reasonable
classification as not class legislation, by upholding the constitutionality of
laws based on substantial distinctions and reasonable classification between
groups. In Lao Ichong vs. Hernandez,128 the Supreme Court sustained the
constitutionality of the Retail Trade Law prohibiting aliens from engaging in
retail trade in the Philippines. The Supreme Court held that:

The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislations,
which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by
territory within which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality
among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under
like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation
which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies
alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a
distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not (2
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 824-825). (Emphasis Supplied)

Government action in favor of protecting the rights of women has

been sustained by the Supreme Court in Philippine Association of Service
Exporters, Inc. vs. Hon. Franklin M. Drilon and Tomas D. Achacoso,129 where the
Supreme Court upheld the Secretary of Labor’s Department Order No. 1,

128 Lao Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, 101 Ph. 1164, May 31, 1957.
129 Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon and Achacoso, G.R. No. L-81958, 163 SCRA 392-393,
June 30, 1988.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 351

Series of 1988 entitled, “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension

of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers.” The
Supreme Court was satisfied that the classification made—the preference for
female workers—rests on substantial distinctions. Penned by Justice
Abraham Sarmiento, the Supreme Court decision states that:

As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the unhappy

plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad, especially
domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by,
in not a few cases, physical and personal abuse. The sordid tales of
maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina workers, even rape and various forms
of torture, confirmed by testimonies of returning workers, are compelling motives
for urgent Government action…

The same, however, cannot be said of our male workers. In the first place,
there is no evidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances, our
men abroad have been afflicted with an identical predicament. The
petitioner has proffered no argument that the Government should
act similarly with respect to male workers. The Court, of course, is not
impressing some male chauvinistic notion that men are superior to women. What
the Court is saying is that it was largely a matter of evidence (that
women domestic workers are being ill-treated abroad in massive
instances) and not upon some fanciful or arbitrary yardstick that the
Government acted in this case. It is evidence capable indeed of
unquestionable demonstration and evidence this Court accepts. The
Court cannot, however, say the same thing as far as men are
concerned. (Emphasis supplied)

The above decision shows the protectionist inclination of the

Supreme Court, although it justified the government’s suspension of
deployment of women for work abroad by citing the data on the abuse
suffered by Filipino women abroad. Although the government’s action was
temporary in nature, many women lost the opportunity to work abroad
without the government providing for an alternative job for them in the
country. The Supreme Court also fell short of instructing the government
to ensure the safety of Filipino women working abroad and the prosecution
of offenders.

In 1996, in what is now known as the Virginia Military Institute

(VMI) Case, in United States v. Virginia, VMI,130 the U.S. Supreme Court took
up the for the first time, the constitutionality of an all-male public school.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether Virginia's creation of a

130 518 U.S. 515 (1996)

352 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
women's-only academy, as a comparable program to the male-only Virginia
Military Institute, was enough to satisfy of the Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection Clause. Having had their male-only admissions policy
found unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit Court, Virginia proposed to
create the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel
program for women.

Justice Ginsburg reversed the lower court’s findings on the remedy

proposed by Virginia, and moves the Court closer to adopting strict scrutiny.
First, she relied heavily on the “exceedingly persuasive justification” for
maintaining a gender-based classification. Specifically, the government
action must show “at least that the classification serves ‘important
governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed’ are
‘substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” [United States
v. Virginia,131 quoting Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan,132
quoting Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins.133] Second, that the Court required
that the justification offered for the sex classification be the real reason for
it, not imagined or invented later, and not relying on overbroad
generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males
and females.134

It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guarantee

of equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on
reasonable classification. A classification is considered reasonable as long as
(1) it rests on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) must
be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing
conditions only but applies to future conditions which are identical to those
of the present; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same
class.135

In the words of Justice Frankfurter: “The equality at which the

‘equal protection’ clause aims is not a disembodied equality. The Fourteenth
Amendment enjoins the ‘equal protection of the laws’ and laws are not
abstract propositions. They do not related to abstract unites A, B and C, but
are expressions of policy arising out of specific difficulties, addressed to the
attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies. The Constitution

131 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996).

132 458 U.S. at 724 (1982).
133 446 U.S. 142, 150 (1980).
134 Mackinnon, C., Sex Equality (2007), p. 360.
135 See People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45889, 68 Phil. 18, May 5, 1939; See also Peralta v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-47771,
82 SCRA 30, March 11, 1978; Felwa v. Salas, G.R. No. L-26511, 18 SCRA 606, Oct. 29, 1966; Philippine Judges Association
v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, 227 SCRA 703, Nov. 11, 1993; Lim v. Pacquing, G.R. No. 115044, 240 SCRA 649, Jan. 27, 1995.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 353

does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in
law as though they were the same.”136

3. RA No. 9262 Does Not Violate the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution

Another argument against the constitutionality of RA No. 9262 is

that it violates the due process clause of the Constitution. This argument is
particularly postulated against the provision regarding the issuance of an ex
parte TPO, especially the removal of the batterer from the house.

The constitutionality of this ex parte TPO has been the subject of

many attacks, in the media and in the courts, including pending a petition
for review in the Supreme Court wherein the husband questions the
constitutionality of The Anti-VAWC Act after a TPO was issued against
him. It is often posited that it violates the man’s right to due process and
the equal protection clause. However, the constitutionality of the TPO is
buttressed by the fact that it is issued by courts not arbitrarily but based on
guidelines set in the law and the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their
Children.137 TPOs are issued ex parte by the trial court based on a verified
application of the woman and her children. It is issued by the judge because
of the urgency and necessity of immediate protection from imminent harm
when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that an
imminent danger of violence against the woman and her children exists or is
about to recur.138

In the United States, the District Court of the State of Wisconsin

held in Blazel v. Bradley that in cases of domestic abuse, Temporary
Restraining Orders (“TROs”) issued ex parte or without notice, that orders
the respondent to avoid the petitioner’s home and stay away from her is not
a violation of the right to due process.

The Blazel139 decision laid down three criteria in determining

whether or not there is a violation of due process. The Court said:

Circumstances justifying the postponing of notice and hearing ‘must

be truly unusual,’ Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 90, 92 S.Ct. at 1999, and must
be shown to have met three criteria:

136 Sison v. Ancheta, G.R. No. L- 61969, 130 SCRA 663, July 25, 1984, citing Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940).
137 A.M. No. 04-10-11 (2004).
138 A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, §15, 26(b) (2004).
139 Blazel v. Bradley, at 762.
354 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
First, in each case, the seizure has been directly necessary to secure an important
governmental or general public interest. Second, there has been a special need for
very prompt action. Third, the State has kept strict control over its monopoly of
legitimate force: the person initiating the seizure has been a government official
responsible for determining, under the standards of a narrowly drawn statute, that
it was necessary and justified in the particular instance.

As well as permitting deprivation without prior notice and hearing

when extraordinary circumstances exist, the Supreme Court has
found such action to be constitutional when appropriate safeguards
are provided.140

The Blazel141 decision also enumerates the three factors that must be
considered in determining the appropriate safeguards in a given situation.
The District Court said:

To determine what safeguards must be provided in a

particular factual situation, a court must consider three factors: the
private interest that will be affected; the risk of an erroneous
deprivation under existing procedures and the probable value of
additional procedures; and the government's interests, including the
burdens imposed by additional procedural requirements.142

Moreover, the District Court also effectively explained why TROs

can be issued without prior notice to the respondent. The Court said:

Weighing the Mathews factors, it is apparent that substantial

procedural protections are mandated by the strength of the
respondent’s interest in his home and family and the evident risk of
erroneous deprivation when mere allegations in a verified petition
may be the basis for an ex parte temporary restraining order. However,
the strength of the petitioner's countervailing interest in her home and family, the
government's interest in preventing abuse, and the possibility that prior notice may
incite domestic violence suggest that those protections should not extend to prior
notice.143 (Emphasis supplied)

To summarize, TPOs are issued by courts not arbitrarily but based

on guidelines in the law and the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their
Children (A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC). TPOs are issued ex parte by the trial court
based not merely on a conclusory claim but on a verified application of the
woman and her children. It is issued by the judge because of the urgency and

140 Blazel v. Bradley, at 763.

141 Blazel v. Bradley, at 763.
142 Mathews vs. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); See also Perry vs. Federal Bureau
of Investigation, 781 F.2d 1294 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,479 U.S. 814, 107 S.Ct. 67, 93 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986) (Mathews
factors applied to deprivations of liberty interests).
143 Blazel v. Bradley, at 763.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 355

necessity of immediate protection from imminent harm when the court is satisfied that there
is reasonable ground to believe that an imminent danger of violence against the woman and
her children exists or is about to recur.144

After the TPO is issued, the respondent is given the opportunity to

be heard (Section 16, R.A. No. 9262), starting with his right to file an
Opposition within five (5) days from notice and hearings are conducted
thereafter,145 which is the essence of the right to due process of law as
reiterated in Levi Strauss & Co., et al. vs. Clinton Apparelle, Inc.146

The TPO grants shelter to the woman and her children regardless of
ownership of the property, cognizant of the fact that the family could have
been living in a rented property or the property is titled in the name of other
persons or corporations. The latter is common among upper class couples
whose houses are assets of corporations for tax or other purposes. It is a
temporary expulsion from the home and hence, the respondent’s right to
ownership is not impaired. The objective of the law is to ensure that the
woman can regain control over her life, and pending litigation she and her
children have a roof over their heads, as well as maintenance or support. It
could also happen that it would be impossible or dangerous for the woman
to stay in the former conjugal home, so that the TPO may include support
and rent for a dwelling.

What the law seeks to prevent through this provision is the

dislocation of the woman and her children while they seek relief from the
courts. This is the reason why the law also provides that the TPO can
include the removal of the respondent from the house, regardless of
ownership. In the Permanent Protection Order, the court may grant the use
of the house to the woman if there is no issue of ownership, or if it is
conjugal or community property. It is only fair and reasonable that, pendente
lite, he who caused the violence must leave the home.

There is therefore no deprivation of property without due process

of law. Neither is there a termination of rights as to custody because the
custody of minors may be granted to the woman in the TPO pendente lite.147
In the TPO, the respondent is ordered to submit his Opposition within five
(5) days from notice, and the date of preliminary conference is stated in the

144 A.M. No. 04-10-11 §§ 15, 26(b) (2004).

145 A.M. No. 04-10-11 § 16 (2004).
146 Levi Strauss & Co., et al. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc., G.R. No. 138900, 470 SCRA 258, Sept. 20, 2005.
147 Rep. Act No. 9262, §11(g) (2004).
356 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
notice. The Rule on Summary Procedure applies so as to expedite the
proceedings, which is also for the benefit of the respondent.

4. R.A. No. 9262 Does Not Violate State Policy

RA No. 9262 does not violate the State policy on the state’s
recognition of the sanctity of family life and protection and strengthening of
the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

The above-stated state policy is precisely the rationale of the passage

of R.A. No. 9262, to protect the family especially women and children from
violence. Section 12 Article II of the Constitution is not meant to grant
immunity to batterers and philanderers in the guise of protecting and
strengthening the family, using as it as a sword to force the abused woman
and her children to live in the same dwelling with their abuser. It was
certainly not the intent of the framers of the Constitution to insist on
“family unity” at the expense of the rights of the woman to her personal
security, equality, and to be free from violence so that she may fully enjoy
her human rights, which encompass civil, political, social and economic
rights.

The above argument is supported by provisions in the Constitution.

The Declaration of State Principles and State Policies148 provides that:

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-

building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women
and men. (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, R.A. No. 9262 in its Declaration of Policy states that:

It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and
children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also
recognizes the need to protect the family and its members,
particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their
personal safety and security. (Emphasis supplied)

Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence
committed against women and children in keeping with the
fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the
provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the

148 CONST. (1987), art. II.

2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 357

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other
international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a
party.

The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against

Women149 laid down the steps that States and the international community
should take to ensure the elimination of all forms of violence against
women, whether occurring in public or private life.

Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that

“the State recognizes the family as a basic autonomous social institution,”
was taken from the first part of Section 4 of Article II of the 1973
Constitution, and the present Constitution merely adopted Article 26 of the
Civil Code (1950) which states, “The family is basic social institution which
public policy cherishes and protects.”150 This provision enjoins the State to
strengthen the family, but this has to be reconciled with Article 116 of the
Civil Code which provides that “when one of the spouses neglects his or her
duties to the conjugal union or brings danger, dishonor or material injury
upon the other, the injured party may apply to the court for relief. The
court may counsel the offender to comply with his or her duties, and to take
such measures, as may be proper.” This is exactly what R.A. No. 9262 does.
It addresses violence against women and children committed in the family.
In fact, the eminent Arturo M. Tolentino observes:

There are cases when one spouse may justifiably live separate from
the other. This is recognized because what the law prohibits is
separation by mutual agreement. Thus, a wife may live separate from
the husband when the latter maltreats her, or brings a concubine into
the conjugal abode, or forces her to live with persons whose habits,
characters and language are offensive to her dignity, or compels her
to be a mere subordinate of his mother. This justified separation
obligates the husband to pay separate maintenance to the wife.151

Domestic violence is a widespread societal problem which has

devastating effects on women, the children and the community. Although
domestic violence focuses on relationships between adults, the silent victims
of violence within the home too often are the children who are not only
physically and emotionally injured but who watch, listen and learn that

149 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, UNGA/Res/48/104 (1993).

150 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 83 (2003).
151 Tolentino, A., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 494-495, citing Planiol and
Ripert, 273-274.
358 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
violence is an acceptable way to cope with stress or problems or to gain
control over another person. Research shows that boys who witness
violence between their parents are almost three times more likely to become
abusers themselves than sons of non-violent parents. In addition, there is
increasing evidence that domestic violence becomes the breeding ground for
other social problems such as violent crimes, substance abuse and juvenile
delinquency.152

The family is the first socialization of children, who must be

protected from violence. Susan Moller Okin153 wrote, “Rather than being
one among many co-equal institutions of a just society, a just family is its
essential foundation.”154 Olkin further wrote:

The family is the linchpin of gender, reproducing it from one

generation to the next. As we have seen, family as typically practiced
in our society is not just, either to women or to children. Moreover,
it is not conducive to the rearing of citizens with a strong sense of
justice…Women are made vulnerable by constructing their lives
around the expectation that they will be primary parents, they
become more vulnerable within marriages in which they fulfill this
expectation… and they are most vulnerable in the event of separation
or divorce, when they usually take over responsibility for children
without adequate support from their ex-husbands… I have suggested
that… the family needs to be a just institution, and have shown that
contemporary theories of justice neglect women and ignore gender.
How can we address this injustice?155

In fact, aside from The Anti-VAWC Act there are other existing
laws that protect children and women from members of their family.
Among these are: a) marital rape under R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Act
of 1997; 2) R.A. No. 7610, known as the anti-child abuse law, which
punishes parents or ascendants of abused or exploited children; 3) R.A. No.
9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 203, which punishes parents
or ascendants of victims. R.A. No. 8369 (1995), called The Family Courts
Act, provides for the jurisdiction of Family Courts in cases of domestic
violence and violence against women and children, where the respondents
are husbands of battered women or fathers of abused children.

152 See Guerrero, S. et al., The Many Faces of Violence, Abuses and Abusive Relationships in Filipino Families, 11

(1999); Strauss, M., et al., Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, 16 (1980).
153 Professor of Political Science at Stanford University; Co-winner of the American Political Science Association’s 1990

Victoria Schuck Award for the best book published in 1989 on women and politics.
154 Justice, Gender and the Family, 17 (1989).
155 Id, at 170-171.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 359

In the Rules of Court there is a recognition that husbands and wives

may be adversaries in court, hence the exception in the marital
disqualification rule of Section 22, Rule 130, which presumes that there is an
identity of interest between husband and wife. In Alvarez vs. Ramirez,156 the
Supreme Court held that:

The marital disqualification rule has its own exceptions, both in civil
actions between the spouses in criminal cases for offenses committed
by one against the other. For instance, where the marital and domestic
relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace
and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and
tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears and the
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
(Emphasis supplied)

Even the Supreme Court recognized that dissolving a marriage that

does not anymore promote the very foundation of family life of love, trust,
support and respect may be the only way of protecting and promoting the
family as a social institution. The Supreme Court in Antonio vs. Reyes157
dissolved a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity and in so
doing declared that:

Indeed, Article 36 of the Family Code, in classifying marriages

contracted by a psychologically incapacitated person as a nullity,
should be deemed as an implement of this constitutional protection of marriage.
Given the avowed State interest in promoting marriage as the
foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of
the nation, there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against
marriages ill-equipped to promote family life. Void ab initio marriages under
Article 36 do not further the initiatives of the State concerning
marriage and family, as they promote wedlock among persons who,
for reasons independent of their will, are not capacitated to
understand or comply with the essential obligations of marriage.
(Emphasis supplied)

5. The Anti-VAWC Act is not an Undue Delegation of Judicial power

to Barangay Officials

Under Section 14 of The Anti-VAWC Act, the punong barangay, or in

his or her absence, a barangay kagawad, may issue a Barangay Protection
Order (hereafter referred to as “BPO”) that directs the perpetrator to desist

156 Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, 473 SCRA 76-77, Oct. 14, 2005.
157 Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, 484 SCRA 372-373, Mar. 10, 2006.
360 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
from committing or threatening to commit physical violence against the
applicant. This duty to issue a BPO is an executive function; it is not judicial
in nature.

It is argued that the provision conferring the power to issue BPOs

to the punong barangay is an undue delegation of judicial power. This
argument is erroneous for the reason that a barangay official’s duty to issue a
BPO is pursuant to his/her duty to ensure peace and order in the
community and to prevent violence against women and their children.
Barangay officials, who are elected officials, do not perform judicial functions
nor conduct hearings when they issue BPOs. The law prescribes limitations
and guidelines. The BPO is limited to stopping physical harm or threat of
physical harm [Sections 5 (a) and 5 (b), R.A. No. 9262], a duty which a
barangay official can do even without a BPO. When the barangay official
receives an application for a BPO and determines the existence of facts such
as intimate or marital relationship of the woman with the person complained
of and the allegations of physical or threat of physical abuse, he or she is not
performing a judicial function.

Judicial power has been defined in jurisprudence as “the right to

determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly
instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.”158 It is the authority to settle
justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and
demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for
violation of such rights.”159 Thus, there can be no occasion for the exercise
of judicial power unless real parties in interest come to court for the
settlement of an actual controversy and unless the controversy is such that it
can be settled in a manner that binds the parties by the application of
existing laws.160

In the case of the issuance of BPOs, the punong barangay does not
settle actual controversies between parties but instead merely enjoins the
perpetrator from committing or threatening to commit physical violence against the
applicant. While the issuance of the BPO involves the determination of some
questions of fact, such as the existence of the basis for the application i.e.,
the residence of the woman and her relationship to her abuser, this function
is merely incidental to the exercise of the duty of barangay officials to
maintain peace and harmony in the community and to give the woman

158 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary, 287 (1996), citing Muskrat v.

United States, 219 U.S. 346 [1911].

159 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary, 827-828 (1996), citing Lopez v.

Roxas, 17 SCRA 756, 761 [1966].

160 Id, at p. 828.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 361

and/or her children immediate protection from further violence. The

barangay official, based on his or her determination of facts stated in the
application for a BPO, may or may not issue a BPO, although they are
enjoined to apply the law in a liberal manner to ensure protection of the
woman for a limited period pursuant to Section 4 of The Anti-VAWC Act.
It is valid only for a period of fifteen (15) days. Within this period, the
woman and her children have legal protection and time to seek the help of
the courts, law enforcement agencies, and avail of support services from
social workers and local governments.

In a case where the power of the Secretary of Public Works and

Communications to cause the removal of dams and dikes in navigable
streams was objected to as an undue delegation of judicial power, the
Supreme Court ruled that:

The mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire the

existence of certain facts and to apply the law thereto in order to
determine what his official conduct shall be and the fact that these
acts may affect private, rights do not constitute an exercise of judicial
powers. Accordingly, a statute may give to non-judicial officers the
power to declare the existence of facts which call into operation its
provisions, and similarly may grant to commissioners and other
subordinate officer, power to ascertain and determine appropriate
facts as a basis for procedure in the enforcement of particular laws.161

The barangay official does not conduct a hearing, cannot grant an

award of custody or order the perpetrator to deliver support. Neither does
he or she rule on who is at fault, or mete out any punishment for the
violation of R.A. No. 9262 or violation of the BPO. In fact, the following
statement is printed on the BPO: “Violation of this order is punishable by
law.” Under Section 36 of Rule on VAWC, “(a)n act of violence covered by R.A.
No. 9262 constituting a criminal offense shall subject the offender to criminal proceedings,
which shall be governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Violation of the
BPO is punishable with imprisonment of thirty (30) days, and is within the
jurisdiction of the municipal trial courts, not the barangay.”

Moreover, the issuance of a BPO is a valid and reasonable exercise

of police power, a power delegated to the local government through the
general welfare clause, Section 16 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as
“The Local Government Code of 1991,” which reads:

161 Lovina, et. al. v. Moreno, et. al., GR No. L-17821, 118 Ph. 1406, Nov. 29, 1963, citing 11 Am. Jur., Const. Law, p.

950, sec. 235.

362 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
Section 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall
exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for
its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to
the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other
things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and
safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-
reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public
morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full
employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve
the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (Emphasis supplied)

Police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of

sovereignty. The fundamental purpose or police power, as held in Binay vs.
Domingo,162 is to secure the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the
people.

The punong barangay has the duty to maintain peace and order in the
community and the general welfare of his or her inhabitants. Under Section
389 of R.A. No. 7160, the powers, duties and functions of a punong barangay
as chief executive include:

Section 389. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, and Functions–

…
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance, the purpose
of which is the general welfare of the barangay and its inhabitants
pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the punong barangay shall:
(1) Enforce all laws and ordinances which are applicable within the barangay;
…
(3) Maintain public order in the barangay and, in pursuance thereof, assist
the city or municipal mayor and the sanggunian members in the
performance of their duties and functions;
…
(14) Promote the general welfare of the barangay; and
…
(15) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as
may be prescribed by law or ordinance… (Emphasis supplied)

In cases of violence against women and their children, the barangay

officials are the most logical choice for entrusting the duty to immediately
provide assistance and protection to abused women, especially women who
are poor, who have no access to lawyers, and who reside far from the courts.

162 Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, 201 SCRA 513, Sept. 11, 1991.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 363

Since the barangay is the basic administrative unit of the country, the barangay
officials are the most accessible authority and representative of the
government which has a State Obligation to prevent and address VAW
under the CEDAW. They are also readily available and acquainted with their
constituents. Even in remote towns where police stations are kilometers
away, the barangay hall is always nearby.

However important the barangay officials’ executive functions under

R.A. No. 9262 are, they are not boundless. They are in fact supervised by the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Under the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9262, the barangay officials
must submit to the DILG a quarterly report of all the BPOs issued within
that period.163 Also, after the passage of the law, a memorandum to all the
DILG officers nationwide on the implementation of RA No. 9262 and the
issuance of the BPO was issued by the former Secretary of DILG, Angelo
T. Reyes.

Section 39 of The Anti-VAWC Act provides for an Inter-Agency

Committee on Violence Against Women and Children. This is composed of
government agencies headed by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development and with three non-government women’s organizations as
members, who are tasked with formulating Implementing Rules and
Regulation (IRR) that serve as guidelines for monitoring government
agencies in the implementation of RA No. 9262. Section 61 of the IRR gives
the guidelines for government agencies, including the DILG, which
monitors the implementation of the law by local government units,
including the issuance of a Barangay Protection Order. The IRR, which has
the force of law, is documentary evidence which proves that the issuance of
a BPO is an executive function and not a judicial one.

With the above-mentioned counter-arguments to the claims against

the constitutionality of RA No. 9262, its validity becomes apparent and
firmly established. Being a legislation of utmost importance due to the
urgent call to prevent and eliminate domestic violence, which is a compelling
interest and State Obligation of the Republic of the Philippines, and given
the historical data that it is women, not men, who suffer abuse, the
application of RA No. 9262 should never be in doubt. Judges, prosecutors,
law enforcers, barangay officials and social welfare and development officers
have all the tools they need under the law to protect the rights of women

163 Rep. Act No. 9262, §14(e) (2004).

364 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
and their children fully, without hesitation, and with the strongest of political
will.

V. PROBLEMS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF R.A. NO. 9262

Notwithstanding that RA No. 9262 provides for sufficient reliefs

and is the most punitive domestic violence law in Asia and the Pacific, the
enforcement of the law is facing many problems.

Lack of gender-responsiveness of Judges

Perhaps the most difficult problem being faced by women litigants

and women’s rights advocates is the lack of gender-responsiveness of many
judges, especially those who continue to believe that the Anti-VAWC Act is
unfair to men, or that it is unconstitutional. There are judges who base their
decisions on their belief that the Anti-VAWC Act destroys the unity of the
family, that they must keep the marriage inviolable despite the violence of
the husband. In an administrative case164 against a pairing Judge of a Family
Court, the transcript of stenographic notes reveal that the Judge wanted the
petitioner wife to reconcile with her husband, stating that “may pinagsamahan
naman sila”165 and the lawyers were “fuelling” the disunity of the marriage.
The Honorable Judge derived his legal principle from a movie.166 The Judge
eventually dismissed the petition for protection order as well as the Motion
for Writ of Execution of the order granting support in the TPO which the
husband refused to pay for more than a year. The woman filed a Notice of
Appeal in the Court of Appeals, where the case is pending. More than a year
after she filed a Notice of Appeal, the appellate court has not acted on her
appeal and to date, she has no support even if the husband controls millions
of pesos in conjugal property.

Reluctance of judges to use power of contempt

As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, many judges do not

strictly apply the summary procedure, thus lengthening the litigation, to the
prejudice of the woman and her children. At the same time, judges do not use
their contempt powers to strictly compel respondents and their lawyers to comply with the

164 This is a pending case in one of the appellate courts.

165 Translated as: “(They) have years of being together as husband and wife.”
166 The judge was quoted in the TSN saying that: “Instead of helping these parties to settle their differences, we are
fuelling their … alright. Have you seen that movie, Mission Impossible III? Have you seen that motive? Tom Cruise there,
married his girlfriend. They were married before a judge and what the judge said was very simple. The vows you are going to
take should not be taken without careful thoughts and prayer. This love should never be diminished by any difficult
circumstances. It could only be dissolved by death. If we only follow that, there’s no need for the parties to quarrel.”
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 365

order of support in the TPO. Without support and unable to afford the cost of
litigation, women are pressured to give up their cases or settle for an
inadequate sum as support, or agree to visitation rights of respondents even
if there is an allegation of child abuse.

Delay

Notwithstanding the provision in Section 4 of RA No. 9262 that

the law must be liberally construed to ensure the protection of women and
their children, some Judges do not issue ex parte TPOs and instead require a hearing.
They are concerned that the respondent may complain that they did not
have an opportunity to be heard (issue of due process), so that the Summary
Procedure is not strictly followed, with some Judges requiring a
memorandum when it is expressly prohibited by the Rule on VAWC
because it will unduly delay the case. Hence the delay in the proceedings in
petitions for protection order even if the Rule on Violence Against Women
and Their Children167 provides that the Summary Procedure must be
followed, and as far as practicable, hearings should be completed in one day.
Many judges do not consider violence against women and their children as
an urgent matter, and there are cases168 where the Judge did not issue a TPO
ex parte and instead, held hearings and finally issued a TPO only after more
than one year. In one case, it was only after two years from the filing of the
petition that the Permanent Protection Order was finally issued.

This is in contrast to the admirable conduct of Judge Rebecca

Mariano (Regional Trial Court of Makati Branch 136) who in May 2004, in a
case where a husband shot his wife in the stomach, was the first judge to
ever issue an ex parte TPO. The lawyers for the woman argued that the
violence was continuing, and the refusal of the husband to give support was
an act of violence under R.A. No. 9262. The intent of the law is to protect
the woman, and since the TPO is only for thirty days and renewable, judges
should best issue ex parte TPOs to ensure the safety of the woman and to
ensure support pending litigation. Another judge, the Honorable Philip
Aguinaldo (Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa Branch 207) issued an ex
parte TPO with an order addressed to the presidents of banks, commanding
them not to allow the withdrawal of funds from any type of deposit or
investment in the name of the respondent or that of the respondent and the
petitioner until further order from the court, to ensure the delivery of
support. Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon (Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City

167 A.M. No. 04-10-11 (2004).

168 These were based on the accounts of some members of the UP Women Lawyers Circle.
366 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
Branch 41) issued a TPO with an order to the Register of Deeds not to
register any transfer, encumbrance or annotation without the presence of the
wife so as to prevent forgery and dissipation of property.

Gross Ignorance of the Law169

Almost five years after the effectivity of the law, there are still
Judges who issue TPOs against women after their husbands or former
partners filed for custody with application for protection order under The
Anti-VAWC Act, or an independent action for protection order. There are
at least four (4) instances where a judge issued a TPO against a woman, the
most recent of which was issued against a Brazilian woman and served on a
holiday, December 24, 2008. In 2007 she got a protection order in Spain
against her German husband. However, they reconciled and moved to the
Philippines, where he later filed a petition for protection order under The
Anti-VAWC Act. Because of the TPO the woman was locked out of the
house and deprived of the custody of her four-year old daughter. In this
case, the tender-age presumption of custody in favor of the mother170 was
not even followed by the judge.

Lack of Appreciation of Economic Abuse

The area of violation of economic rights of women and their

children is a form of violence which is least appreciated by many judges. In
one case in Biñan, the Judge dismissed a petition for protection order filed
by a woman who was thrown out of the house and prevented from
returning, stating that the solution is to dissolve the conjugal partnership.
With due respect, the judge failed to appreciate Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262
which provides that deprivation of the use or enjoyment of conjugal or
community property is an act of violence against women. The criminal
action for deprivation of the use of the conjugal house was also dismissed by
the city prosecutor, who gave the reasoning that the action should be civil,
not criminal in nature, even if RA No. 9262 very clearly gives the woman the
relief of both civil and criminal actions.

Unethical Conduct of Lawyers

The TPO against the Brazilian woman is not the first, which shows
that this legal tactic is repeatedly being used by the lawyers of men because
there are judges who can be bribed or erroneously believe that under The

169 See Conducto v. Monzon MTJ-98-1147, Jul. 2, 1998 for the definition of the term “gross ignorance of the law.”
170 FAMILY CODE, §213.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 367

Anti-VAWC Act they can grant the same relief of a TPO to a man where he
alleges child abuse. The lawyers of men who apply for a protection order
under The Anti-VAWC Act should also be liable for gross ignorance of the
law. The first issuance of a TPO under RA No. 9262 against a woman was
issued by a female judge of the Family Court in Antipolo City, against a
woman who had previously won a custody suit in another city. Her husband
abducted the children, then he got a TPO and filed a criminal action for
violation of the anti-child abuse law, using a psychologist’s report affirming
his allegation that his wife was cavorting with her boyfriend in the presence
of her young children. The criminal action was dismissed by the
investigating State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice.

Police and Court Personnel Misconduct

The most talked about case of a TPO171 issued against a woman

involved a television personality who was not married to the father of her
child.172 While her petition for protection order was pending in a court in
Mandaluyong City, her former partner sued for custody with an application
for protection order in Bago City. Using a TPO against the woman, her
former partner, with the aid of police officers and the court sheriff took her
one-year old son from her residence. The Court of Appeals issued a TRO
against the Judge, and after a hearing and memorandum filed by the
appellant, dismissed the petition for custody and granted custody pendente
lite to the woman. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals.173

TRO Against a TPO

In another case, after the Family Court issued a TPO against the
husband, his lawyer filed for Injunction and Prohibition even if these are
prohibited under Section 22 of the Rule on VAWC. Before the woman
could file her opposition to the application for a TRO, the Court of Appeals
issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the Judge who issued the
TPO, leaving the woman and her three minor children vulnerable to lack of
support and retaliation attacks during the 60-day period of the TRO,
including an attempt to abduct her youngest son and daughter. After the
TRO lapsed, even when hearings in the Family Court continued, the

171 Based on the cases researched and brought to the attention of the authors through cases handled, this was the

second TPO to be issued against a woman.

172 See FAMILY CODE , §176. It provides that mothers of illegitimate children shall have sole parental authority over

them.
173 The man filed for a Motion for Reconsideration so the case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
368 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
husband refused to deliver support to the woman and her three minor
children. When the woman went to the conjugal home with police officers
to get her belongings, the house helpers of her husband jumped over the
fence. Thereafter, a complaint for Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention was
filed against the wife and a police officer in the Department of Justice in
Manila. The retaliation did not end there. The husband filed a disbarment
complaint against the lawyer of the woman and her children, and an
administrative complaint against the Family Court Judge. The Court of
Appeals eventually dismissed the petition for injunction and prohibition, but
the damage has been done.

With due respect, Judges who issue TPOs against women or Justices
of the Court of Appeals who issue a TRO against Judges of Family Court
who issued a TPO should be administratively liable for gross ignorance of
the law, and the same for Judges who influence or pressure the woman or
her lawyers to settle the case or reconcile with her husband or partner. It
cannot be said that the issuance of a TPO against a woman or a TRO
against a judge who issued a TPO is a mere judicial error because the law is
very clear, and the intent of the law, which is to protect the woman and her
children, should be upheld. The Supreme Court must enforce Section 27 of
the Rule on VAWC strictly, to send a clear signal to Judges that they cannot
feign excusable ignorance of the intent and spirit of the law. Fortunately,
there are instances where the Supreme Court, if and when brought to its
attention, put its full weight to ensure that the TPO and its powerful
implications are used within the constitutional limits and most importantly,
only for those whom the law considers as entitled. Last May, 2007, Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno had ordered the preventive suspension of a female Family Court
judge of the Makati City Regional Trial Court. Her court was padlocked pending an
investigation and judicial audit regarding her alleged sale of TPOs and PPOs. In one case,
she issued a TPO and ordered the woman to turn over their minor child to her husband on
May 7, 2007.174 The following day, the Judge issued another order “authorizing the
sheriff to enter the open premises where subject minor may be found for the purpose of
turning over custody to petitioner.” Former Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, in
his report, said that the Judge displayed gross ignorance of the law in issuing the order and
that the TPO cannot be justified under The Anti-VAWC Act since “the applicant is a
man seeking to enforce an order against a woman.”

This wrongful conduct is also a form of gender discrimination

committed by a Judge which is attributable to the Judiciary as an organ of

174 See Supreme Court News Flash (2007), available at

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2007/05/05160703.php.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 369

the State. The Supreme Court has the duty to comply with the State
Obligations under the CEDAW and in the United Nations Charter which
provides that states must have impartial tribunals that do not discriminate
on the basis of sex.175

Judges who issued TPOs against a woman justified their unlawful

order by citing child abuse as alleged by the husband. But it is grossly
incorrect to issue a TPO against a woman. If the father of the child is the
petitioner in a custody case, the proper Rule that applies is the Rule on
Habeas Corpus and Custody of Minors if the husband petitions for
custody.176 Under this Rule, a protective order may only be issued to protect
the child after the respondent has filed an Answer, and a pre-trial has been
held. There is no ex parte TPO under the Rule on Habeas Corpus and
Custody of Minors.

Conflicting Decisions

Yet another problem in the law was encountered by a survivor of

violence who was assisted by the Women’s Crisis Center, Inc. Maria177 sued
her husband, a public school teacher, for support with an application for
protection order. The Judge issued an order to the Department of
Education (DepEd) to automatically deduct from her husband’s salary178 the
amount of Four Thousand Pesos, which is the amount of support granted to
his child with Maria. The Anti-VAWC Act provides that notwithstanding
other laws to the contrary, the court shall order an appropriate percentage of
the income or salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by the
respondent’s employer for the same to be automatically remitted directly to
the woman. Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay in the remittance
of support to the woman and/or her child without justifiable cause shall
render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect contempt of
court.”179 However, DepEd refused to deduct from his salary such amount,
citing several decisions of the Supreme Court such as Tiro v. Hontanosas,180
which states that payment of salary to persons other than the employee
concerned is prohibited because “the salary check of a government officer
or employee such as a teacher does not belong to him before it is physically

175 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, U.N., art. 2.
176 A.M. NO. 03-03-04 SC.
177 Not her real name.
178 Rep. Act No. 9262 (2004) provides “directing the respondent to provide support to the woman and/or her child if entitled to legal
support.”
179 Rep. Act No. 9262, §8(g) (2004).
180 Tiro v. Hontanosas, G.R. No. L-32312, 125 SCRA 697, Nov. 25, 1983.
370 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
delivered to him. Until that time the check belongs to the Government.
Accordingly, before there is actual delivery of the check, the payee has no
power over it; he cannot assign it without the consent of the
Government.”181

Corruption in the Judiciary continues to be a problem

Corruption prejudices the poor most especially women and children

and in effect denies them of their right to an impartial tribunal. In a Social
Weather Stations study of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession released in
2005, results revealed that corruption in the Judiciary remains to be a major
problem. As in 1995, one-fourth of respondent lawyers say Many/Very
Many judges are corrupt. However, although half (49%) say they know a
case their own city or province where a judge took a bribe, only 8% of such
lawyers said they reported the bribery, the main excuse of those keeping
silent being that they could not prove it.

Inadequate legal aid services; costly and lengthy litigation

Although the Rule on VAWC allows the indigent woman and those
who are in immediate danger to file a petition for protection order without
paying filing fees, litigation is still costly for the woman. Without a national
free legal aid program for women, they must hire lawyers on their own and
pay for expenses. Although non-governmental organizations and lawyers’
groups such as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Child Justice League,
Womenlead Foundation, Inc. and Gender Justice Network give free legal aid
to battered women and their children, their services are limited and funding
for non-governmental organizations is scarce. The lack of free or affordable
legal aid services is a problem which must be immediately addressed by the
government because this is one of the rights of VAW survivors enumerated
in The Anti-VAWC Act.

There is a proposal to require all lawyers to give free legal aid, but
what is more important is the quality of the service for women and their
children. It is not enough that the lawyers give legal aid, they should also be
trained on gender sensitivity and the laws on VAWC in order for them to
have the correct perspective and motivate them to defend their clients’
rights with commitment and care.

181 Tiro v. Hontanosas, G.R. No. L-32312, 125 SCRA 697, Nov. 25, 1983.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 371

No Relief Pending Appeal

The Rule on VAWC is silent on the issuance of TPOs by the Court

of Appeals pending appeal. A woman who was granted support in a TPO
which was later dismissed by a Family Court will be unable to afford to go
on appeal. The power of a stay away order and support in the TPO is such
that it enables the woman to regain control of her life and continue litigation
to have full recourse under the law such as proceeding with a suit for
dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains and/or a petition for legal
separation or nullity of marriage.

A liberal construction of the law under section 4 of the Rule on

VAWC should help judges to interpret this lacuna when providing for a
TPO pending appeal. Without this relief, very few women will pursue their
appeal, and many more will be discouraged in filing cases in the first place.

Retaliation Suits by Respondent’s Lawyers

There is a serious problem of ethics for lawyers for respondents

who treat VAW cases like any other case, uninformed about gender
inequality, VAW, and The Anti-VAWC Act and the Rule on VAWC. They
aid or tolerate their clients’ refusal to deliver support, although they should
know that an order must be complied with and as officers of the court they
have a duty to ensure compliance by their clients, including the filing of a
Bond to Keep the Peace required in many TPOs and Permanent Protection
Orders. Worse, they engage in retaliation suits including the filing of
disbarment suits against the lawyer of the woman in order to gain an
advantage for their client even if this will surely make them liable under the
Code of Professional Responsibility. In a case which was previously
discussed, the husband financed the filing of a complaint for
Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention against his wife and a policewoman in
the Department of Justice in Manila and not in the province where the
alleged offense was committed. The husband’s lawyer is the also the lawyer
of his house helpers. After he has gained an advantage, he was emboldened
to refuse to deliver support, and dropped the negotiation for settlement or
division of the conjugal partnership of gains. The investigating State
Prosecutors dismissed the complaint and the husband instructed his lawyer
to appeal to the Secretary of Justice. Mediation meetings were conducted by
the Secretary of Justice (not upon the request of the woman). When the
woman refused to return to the conjugal home, the husband pursued his
appeal. The Secretary of Justice reversed the prosecutors and found
probable cause. Upon Motion for Reconsideration of the woman, the Acting
372 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
Secretary of Justice dismissed the complaint. The lawyer of the complainants
filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, even if this is prohibited under
the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal. The second Motion
for Reconsideration is pending.

Retaliations suits against battered women who sue under RA No.

9262 will continue to be a problem until the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines emphasizes the Code of Professional Responsibility in cases
under RA No. 9262 and require its members to attend gender sensitivity
seminars through the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, and the
Commission on Bar Discipline strictly enforce the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

No Budget in the Law

There is no budget for the implementation of RA No. 9262 in the

law. This is the main reason why to date, there is no systematic and
nationwide training on gender and RA No. 9262 for prosecutors, law
enforcers and barangay officials. The national agencies have to rely on their
5% Gender and Development Budget which is included yearly in the
General Appropriations Act. The Department of the Interior and Local
Government does not have a specific budget for seminars and leaves it to
the local governments to fund their own seminars on RA No. 9262.

Inadequate Funds for Shelter and other Support Services

The Department of Social Welfare and Development does not have

sufficient funds for the maintenance of adequate shelters, livelihood and
sustenance and education of children pending litigation. Without a full
support system, a mechanism with funds that will give them an opportunity
to have financial independence from their batterers, full government
support, with free legal aid included, women will never have full access to
justice.

No Divorce Law

Lastly, as mentioned earlier, there is the problem of the lack of a

divorce law in the Philippines, which makes it doubly difficult for abused
women to get out of their marriage and get their lawful share of the
community or conjugal property.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 373

VI. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON LEGISLATING VIOLENCE AGAINST

WOMEN

According to the United Nations Secretary-General’s in-depth study

on all forms of violence against women,182 only about half of United
Nations Member States had in place legislative provisions that specifically
addressed domestic violence. Fewer than half had legislation on sexual
harassment, or on trafficking.

Moreover, according to a report of an Expert Group Meeting on

Good Practices in Legislations on Violence Against Women organized by
the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women and the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime at Vienna, Austria last May 26
to 28, 2008,183 the legislations that exist were often limited in scope and
coverage. The report provides:

Even where legislation existed, it was often limited in scope and

coverage, such as definitions of rape by use of force; definitions of
domestic violence limited to physical violence; treatment of sexual
violence as a crime against the honour of the family or against
decency, rather than a crime against a woman’s right to bodily
integrity; reduction of sentences in rape cases where the perpetrator
marries the survivor and/or immunity in cases of spousal/marital
rape; laws that allow early or forced marriage; inadequate penalties for
crimes of violence against women, including reduction and/or
elimination of sentences for so-called crimes of honour.184

The members of the expert group meeting thus defined a clear

legislative goal on violence against women, which is to prevent violence
against women, to ensure investigation, prosecution and punishment of
perpetrators, and to provide protection and support for complainants and
survivors of violence.185 The expert group meeting also emphasized the need
to develop legislation on violence against women from a human rights
perspective. “Existing legislation addressing violence against women should
be assessed in light of international standards, particularly human rights and
criminal justice, in order to enact amendments or new legislation in
accordance with such standards,” the report provided.

182 Study of the Secretary-General: Ending Violence against Women: from words to action, A/61/122/Add.1 and Corr.1 (2006).
183 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, Good Practices in Legislation on Violence Against Women, 3 (2008), available at

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/Report%20EGMGPLVAW%20(final%2011.11.08).pdf.
184 Id.
185 Id, at 5.
374 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
The expert group meeting underscored the importance of adhering
to principles in the development and implementation of legislation such as
those outlined in the Secretary-General’s in-depth study on all forms of
violence against women.186 According to these principles, laws on violence
against women should:

address violence against women as a form of gender-based

discrimination, and a violation of women’s human rights;

make clear that violence against women is unacceptable and

that eliminating it is a public responsibility;

ensure that complainants/survivors of violence are not

“revictimized” through the legal process;

promote women’s agency and empower individual women

who are complainants/survivors of violence;

promote women’s safety in public spaces; and

take into account the differential impact of measures on

women according to their race, class, ethnicity, religion,
disability, culture, indigenous or migrant status, legal status,
age or sexual orientation.

Laws on violence against women should also create mechanisms to:

monitor implementation of legal reforms to assess how well

they are working in practice; and

keep legislation under constant review and continue to

reform it in the light of new information and
understanding.187

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EXPERTS

With regard to protection orders, which are among the most

efficient remedies available to a victim of violence, the expert group meeting
recommended that legislation should make protection orders available to
survivors of all forms of violence against women. Presently, Chapter 6 of the
Mexican Law on Access of Women to a Life Free of Violence (2007) makes
protection orders available to survivors of any form of violence defined in

186 See note 170, supra.

187 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 6-7.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 375

the Act, including violence in the family, violence in the workplace or

educational settings, violence in the community, institutional violence, and
femicide. The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act of 2007 in the United
Kingdom allows courts to issue an order for the purposes of protecting (a) a
person from being forced into a marriage or from any attempt to be forced
into a marriage; or (b) a person who has been forced into a marriage.

And in addressing child custody in protection order proceedings, it

was recommended that legislation should include the following provisions:

presumption against award of custody to the perpetrator;

presumption against unsupervised visitation by the

perpetrator;

requirement that, prior to supervised visitation being

granted, the perpetrator must show that at least three
months has passed since the most recent act of violence,
that he has stopped using any form of violence, and that he
is participating in a treatment programme for perpetrators;
and

no visitation rights are to be granted against the will of the

child.188

Civil lawsuits are a valuable supplement or alternative to criminal

prosecution, civil protection orders, and other available legal remedies.189
Depending on the facts of the case and the law of the jurisdiction, the forms
of relief available to successful plaintiffs in civil lawsuits may include
compensatory damages, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
and a court order requiring the defendant to pay the prevailing plaintiff’s
attorney fees.190 As such, legislation should allow survivors of violence against women
to bring lawsuits against the perpetrators as well as governmental or non-governmental
individuals and entities that have not exercised due diligence to prevent, investigate or
punish the violence.

These lawsuits provide an additional opportunity to hold

government agencies and other entities liable for violence against women,
and may also present a source of monetary compensation for the survivor.

188 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 56.

189 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 64.
190 Id.
376 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
In the case of Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das,191 the Indian
Supreme Court affirmed the unprecedented award of 10,000,000 rupees to a
Bangladeshi survivor of rape by railway officials in West Bengal as
compensation for the violation of the woman’s fundamental right to life and
equality under the Indian Constitution, irrespective of her foreign
citizenship.192 In the case of Thurman v. City of Torrington,193 a plaintiff sued
the city of Torrington, Connecticut, in the United States of America, alleging
that police officers repeatedly ignored her complaints about the violence
being committed by her estranged husband and even stood by and watched
as the latter brutally attacked her The complainant was awarded US $2.3
million in damages by the jury.194

A. FAMILY LAW PROVISIONS

On the other hand, in family law cases involving violence against

women, the experts recommended that legislation should guarantee the
following and amend all relevant provisions in family law to reflect:

divorce from a violent husband and adequate alimony to

women and children;

the survivor’s right to stay in the family dwelling after

divorce;

social insurance and pension rights of survivors who

divorce the perpetrator;

expedited distribution of property, and other relevant

procedures;

careful screening of all custody and visitation cases so as to

determine whether there is a history of violence;

a statutory presumption against awarding child custody to a

perpetrator;

availability, in appropriate cases, of professionally run

supervised visitation centers;

191 Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, 2 SCC 465 (India, 2000).: http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:6n-

SrzXRCqcJ:delhicourts.nic.in/Jan08/Dharampal%2520Vs.%2520DTC.pdf+Chairman+Railway+Board+v.+Chandrima+Das
&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4
192 Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, 2 SCC 465 (India, 2000).
193 Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp. 1521 D. Conn. (1984).
194 Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp. 1521 D. Conn. (1984).
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 377

a survivor of violence who has acted in self-defense, or fled

in order to avoid further violence, should not be classified
as a perpetrator, or have a negative inference drawn against
her, in custody and visitation decisions; and

child abuse and neglect proceedings should target the

perpetrators of violence and recognize that the protection
of children is often best achieved by protecting their
mothers. (Emphasis supplied)195

B. SPECIALIZED COURTS

The creation of specialized courts was also seen as a good policy

recommendation in order to guarantee timely and efficient handling of cases
involving violence against women.196 Legislation should also ensure that
officers assigned to specialized courts receive specialized training and that
measures are in place to minimize stress and fatigue of such officers.197 The
expert group meeting report stated:

Experiences of complainants/survivors with court personnel in

regular courts suggests that such personnel frequently do not have the necessary
gender-sensitivity or comprehensive understanding of the various laws that apply to violence
against women cases; may not be sensitive to women’s human rights; and may
be overburdened with other cases, resulting in delays and increased costs to
the complainant/survivor. Specialized courts exist in a number of countries,
including Brazil, Spain, Uruguay, Venezuela, the United Kingdom, and a
number of states in the United States of America. Such courts have been effective
in many instances as they provide a stronger possibility that court and judicial officials will
be specialized and gender-sensitive regarding violence against women, and often include
procedures to expedite cases of violence against women.

The specialized integrated courts established by Title V of the

Organic Act on Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence (2004) in
Spain and article 14 of the Maria da Penha Law (2006) in Brazil deal with all
legal aspects of cases regarding domestic violence, including divorce and
child custody proceedings and criminal proceedings. By streamlining and
centralizing court processes, such integrated courts eliminate contradictory orders, improve
complainant/survivor safety, and reduce the need for complainants/survivors to testify
repeatedly. However, it is important to ensure that the complainant/survivor

195 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 62.

196 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 21.
197 Id.
378 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
retains control over the proceedings and does not feel forced to take actions,
such as divorce or separation, when she is not ready. The Spanish experience
suggests that proceedings in specialized courts sometimes progress too
rapidly for complainants/survivors and, as a result, some
complainants/survivors withdraw from the process. It is also important to
ensure that all relevant professionals are available in specialized courts.
Sexual Offences Courts established as part of the anti-rape strategy in South
Africa are staffed by a cadre of prosecutors, social workers, investigating
officers, magistrates, health professionals and police. (Emphasis supplied)198

C. PUBLIC AWARENESS

To effectively implement violence against women legislation, public

awareness should likewise be intensified. Aside from public awareness-
raising campaigns on violence against women, legislation should also
provide for compulsory education at all levels of schooling, from
kindergarten to the tertiary level, on the human rights of women and girls,
the promotion of gender equality, and in particular, the right of women and
girls to be free from violence.199

The sensitization of the media was also suggested in the expert

group meeting, positing that legislation should encourage the sensitization of
journalists and other media personnel regarding violence against women.
The report said:

Media representations significantly influence societal perceptions of

acceptable behavior and attitudes. Training journalists and other
media personnel on women’s human rights and the root causes of
violence against women may influence the way in which the issue is
reported and thereby influence societal attitudes. The Spanish Organic
Act on Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence (2004)
provides in article 14 that “[t]he communications media shall work
for the protection and safeguarding of sexual equality, avoiding any
discrimination between men and women” and that “[r]eports
concerning violence against women, within the requirements of
journalistic objectivity, shall do the utmost to defend human rights
and the freedom and dignity of the female victims of gender violence
and their children.” Article 8 of the Brazilian Maria da Penha Law
(2006) calls for the communications media to avoid stereotyped roles
that legitimize or encourage domestic and family violence.200

198 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 21-22.

199 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 32.
200 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 33-34.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 379

D. SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE

Despite all the aforementioned recommended provisions, however,

violence against women legislation will not be fully effective when there is a
lack of protection, support, and assistance to complainants of violence
against women amply provided by the State. The expert group meeting
enumerated their recommendations:

Legislation should:

oblige the State to provide funding for, and/or contribute

to establishing comprehensive and integrated support
services to assist survivors of violence;

state that all services for women survivors of violence

should also provide adequate support to the women’s
children;

state that the location of such services should allow

equitable access to the services, in particular by urban and
rural populations; and

where possible, establish at least the following minimum

standards of availability of support services for
complainants/survivors:

one national women’s phone hotline where all

complainants/survivors of violence may get assistance by
phone around the clock and free of cost and from where
they may be referred to other service providers;

one shelter/refuge place for every 10, 000 inhabitants,

providing safe emergency accommodation, qualified
counseling and assistance in finding long-term
accommodation;

one women’s advocacy and counseling centre for every 50,

000 women, which provides proactive support and crisis
intervention for complainants/survivors, including legal
advice and support, as well as long-term support for
complainants/survivors, and specialized services for
particular groups of women (such as specialized services for
immigrant survivors of violence, for survivors of trafficking
in women or for women who have suffered sexual
harassment at the work place), where appropriate;
380 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
one rape crisis centre for every 200,000 women; and

access to health care, including reproductive health care and

HIV prophylaxis.201

Presently, several states are increasingly providing legislative

mandates for the establishment of services.202 In the Guatemalan Law
Against Femicide and other Forms of Violence Against Women (2008), the
Government is required to guarantee survivors of violence access to
integrated service centers, including providing financial resources. In
Mexico, the Law on Access of Women to a Life Free of Violence (2007) requires
the State to support the installation and maintenance of shelters. The Local
Administration Law of Turkey requires the creation of shelters in
municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants. And in Austria, the
Violence Protection Act (1997) mandates that all provinces must establish
intervention centers where survivors of domestic violence are proactively
offered assistance after interventions by the police. The intervention centers
are run by women’s non-governmental organizations and financed by the
Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Women on the basis of five-year
contracts.

It was also recommended that legislation should provide for

efficient and timely provision of financial assistance to survivors in order to
meet their needs.203 The expert group meeting report discussed how this
recommendation is being enforced in some countries as follows:

Under sections 1061JA and 1061 JH of Australia’s Social Security Act,

as amended in 2006, survivors of domestic violence may qualify for a
“crisis payment” from the federal welfare agency “Centrelink”, where
they have left the home because of violence, and/or where they
remain in the home following the departure of the perpetrator and
are in severe financial hardship. Depending on the legal context, such
assistance could be made available through a trust fund for survivors
of violence to which both the State and other actors may contribute.
Section 29 of the Ghanaian Domestic Violence Act (2007) establishes a
Victims of Domestic Violence Support Fund. The fund receives
voluntary contributions from individuals, organizations and the
private sector; money approved by Parliament; and money from any
other source approved by the Minister of Finance. The money from
the Fund is used for a variety of purposes, including the basic
material support of victims of domestic violence; any matter

201 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 34.

202 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 35.
203 Report of the Expert Group Meeting, at 37.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 381

connected with the rescue, rehabilitation and reintegration of victims

of domestic violence; the construction of shelters for survivors of
domestic violence; and training and capacity building for persons
connected with the provision of shelter, rehabilitation and
reintegration.204

Reverting to the Philippine experience, it is evident that after more

than four years since the effectivity of the Anti-VAWC Act, women continue to face
many obstacles in the courts, in the barangay, in the police system, and in the prosecution
service. Though the law provides adequate remedies that are certainly tailor-
fitted to address violence within the context of intimate relationships, and
most certainly there are already cases to signify the success of victims
availing such remedies, however, the problems in the enforcement of the
law must be put in constant review, having in mind the changing needs of
the survivors of the violence and to enable the implementers to enforce the law fully so
as to ensure access to justice for women.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Anti-VAWC Act is the most punitive domestic violence law in

Asia. It carries high penalties of imprisonment, but this alone does not serve
as a deterrent against domestic violence. Since many poor women do not
report violence for fear of their abuser aside from their lack of independent
means of income, we cannot conclude from the number of reported cases
that there is a decrease in the incidence of domestic violence. What may be
indications of effectiveness of government implementers are the number of
arrests, cases prosecuted and BPOs, TPOs and PPOs issued, inasmuch as
the prevention of VAW rests on changing a patriarchal culture, enforcement
of the law and punishment of perpetrators.

The Anti-VAWC Act is weak in prevention mechanism even if there

are Implementing Rules and Regulations mainly because there is no specific
budget for its implementation under the law and the lack of political will of
some government agencies. Programs on prevention of VAW and services
for survivors have to compete with all other programs of the national
agencies using their 5% Gender and Development Budget in the General
Appropriations Act. It is important that the government makes a determined
effort to prevent VAW and improve women’s access to justice by providing
them with full support in terms of services, including shelter, means of

204 Id.
382 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
livelihood free legal aid, as well as training seminars for judges, the police,
prosecutors, barangay officials, and social workers. Since the government
does not have a nationwide legal aid program yet, the national government
agencies and local government units can contract the services of non-
government organizations and lawyers groups especially in the provinces
who are giving free legal aid to women. As a matter of fact, the Supreme
Court has already issued a resolution205 approving the proposed rule of
Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers.

Although the Anti-VAWC Act does not have some of the

provisions on more liberal protection orders in the laws of other countries
such as Spain, or the power to remove the offender from the house by the
police in Bulgaria, there is a wide scope of opportunity for our judges to
create orders under the TPO to ensure full protection to the woman and her
children, using Section 4 of The Anti-VAWC Act and the Rule on VAWC,
and good practices in other countries with expanded relief in their
protection orders. The enumeration of the contents of the TPO under the Anti-
VAWC Act is not meant to be exclusive. Judges must act on cases of VAWC
with a sense of urgency, recognizing that women’s human rights are being
violated.

The Rule on VAWC may be reformed to include TPOs pending

appeal, and no filing fee for petition for protection order and appeal
regardless of the income of the woman and even if it involves dissolution of
the conjugal partnership of gains or the community property. It may also
include a provision giving the judges a specific period within which to decide
whether a TPO which is not ex parte may be issued or not, and a specific
period to determine whether a permanent protection order may be issued or
not. A maximum period for finishing the hearings and with administrative
sanctions for delay and a specific period for deciding on an appeal in the
Court of Appeals may also be added. Other provisions to ensure speedy
administration of justice and discourage delay in the courts should be
included.

The Rules of Court and the Family Code should be reformed to

ensure the speedy dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains or the
community property in cases of violence against women, without requiring
filing fees on the part of the battered woman. These should also include a
specific provision on forfeiture of the share of the respondent in favor of

205 Supreme Court Resolution, BM No. 2012, February 10, 2009. The rule shall become effective on July
1, 2009.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 383

the common children in cases of violence against women and children, in an

action for dissolution of the CPG or community property even without the
relief of legal separation or nullity of marriage.

Many judges attempt to insinuate reconciliation, and some actually

pressure the women to reconcile with their husbands despite the prohibition
on mediation and conciliation under Section 33 and Section 27 of the Rule
on VAWC. This is a problem for the Supreme Court, for without
enforcement of Section 27 which makes the judges liable for attempting to
influence the woman to give up any of the reliefs under the law, many judges
will continue to impose their gender bias against women and continue to
subordinate them to their husbands. If a violation of Section 27 would merit
a dismissal, all judges will surely feel that the Supreme Court is sending a
clear signal for them to enforce the law, whatever their personal beliefs are.
This problem may also be solved by continuous seminars of judges on
gender equality and the Anti-VAWC Act, especially Family Court judges and
their pairing judges.206

Another critical area for reform is the appointment of judges and

justices by the President, a highly political process that may result in the
deterioration of the quality of judges.207 The Judicial and Bar Council should
recommend applicants who are gender-responsive, versed in the laws on
rights of women and children, have studied the CEDAW and other
international conventions, and know which universally accepted principles
of international law form part of the law of the land. We need judges who
not only know what the law is, but also how it should be interpreted in the
light of state obligations under international conventions, aware of the
problem of VAW and the importance of giving women access to justice.

The Judicial and Bar Council may recommend more women in the
Judiciary, to add to the present ratio of one female to three male judges in
the Regional Trial Courts. While it is true that it does not necessarily mean
that all female judges are gender-responsive, having more of them in the
Judiciary will reflect women’s experiences, and more women in decision
making positions can enrich the Judiciary and the government.

To instill adherence to the highest principles of integrity, propriety

and non-discrimination, the Supreme Court may also specify a prohibition
on gender discrimination in the New Philippine Code of Judicial Conduct.

206 Pairing judges are those who take over the cases when the Family Court judge inhibit or are on leave.
207 Id at 15 p70.
384 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
Law schools can be required to include the subject of Gender and Law in
their curricula and ensure that the Family Code and other laws are taught
with a gender perspective. The ethical duty of lawyers to act with gender-
sensitivity and without discrimination on account of gender should also be
included in the Code of Professional Responsibility,208 and lawyers who
engage in retaliation suits after TPOs are issued against their clients may be
found guilty of unethical conduct by the Commission on Bar Discipline.

The Department of Justice needs to conduct a nationwide and

systematic training on gender, The Anti-VAWC Act, the Anti-Trafficking of
Persons Act and other laws on VAW. The DOJ also needs to create task
forces on women and children in the provinces. It should also have a
monitoring system to ensure speedy resolution of cases brought under the
Anti-VAWC Act and the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act.209 At present only
the DOJ in Manila has a Task Force on Women and Children, where many
of the prosecutors are trained on gender sensitivity and violence against
women and children.

The Inter-Agency Council on VAWC should have its own budget,

and do more than monitor and set standards and among others, ensure the
systematic and nationwide training of implementers especially the police and
prosecutors. It should have its own budget, police its own ranks and make
its members accountable for failing marks and non-compliance. It should
find ways to ensure full enforcement of the law, including a regular review
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations, government services, and
request inputs from women’s organizations and women’s rights lawyers.
Government collaboration with non-government organizations and
community response to VAW should be enhanced.

The remedies under The Anti-VAWC Act and in the Family Code
are not sufficient for women to be free from abuse. Although the acts of
violence in the Anti-VAWC Act can now add to the definition of “grossly
abusive conduct”210 as a ground for legal separation and although there is
Article 36 of the Family Code which allows nullity of marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity, these laws do not give women a speedy
and less costly way to litigating her way out of her violent husband’s sphere
of power and control through marriage. Thus, Congress must pass a law on

208 Id.
209 The IRR of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that prosecutors have to resolve the cases within 45 days, but this is hardly

honored in practice. In one case, Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzalez, upon request of the woman, wrote a memorandum to
the City Prosecutor of Quezon City asking him to explain his action or lack thereof on a complaint which has been pending
for a year.
210 See Ong v. Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006 for the definition of the term “grossly abusive conduct”.
2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 385

divorce. The Philippines is the only country in Asia that has no divorce law. Countries
all over the world, including those which are pre-dominantly Catholic like Spain and Italy
have divorce laws except for the Philippines and Malta. It cannot be stressed enough
that the lack of a divorce law continues to militate against the right and
ability of women to exert their own independence and be free from a life of
violence. In the Philippines, where psychological incapacity is the only
ground for nullity of marriage and repeated physical abuse, abandonment for
more than one year or grossly abusive conduct are only grounds for legal
separation that do not sever the marriage, a battered woman may find
herself strong enough to leave but the law does not allow her to do so. The
immense psychological impact on the woman that the law is on her side is
recognized by the United Nations Human Rights Council. In a report211 by
Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak, he has gone so far as to emphasize
State accountability for laws that inhibit women’s rights to be free from
abusive conduct:

State acquiescence in domestic violence can take many forms, some

of which may be subtly disguised. For instance, Civil laws that appear
to have little to do with violence also have an impact on women’s
ability to protect themselves and assert their rights. Laws that restrict
women’s right to divorce or inheritance, or that prevent them from gaining custody
of their children, receiving financial compensation or owning property, all serve to
make women dependent upon men and limit their ability to leave a violent
situation…States should be held accountable for complicity in violence against
women, whenever they create and implement discriminatory laws that may trap
women in abusive circumstances. State responsibility may also be engaged
if domestic laws fail to provide adequate protection against any form
of torture and ill-treatment in the home. (Emphasis supplied)

It is also pertinent to add that the Special Rapporteur made this

declaration for a report on torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment or
punishment. This is an indication that the international community has long
elevated domestic violence as an issue involving the State, and in Nowak’s
report he refers to domestic violence as a form of torture. Nowak reported
that:

International law has developed considerably over the years to

become more gender-inclusive. In 1996, the Special Rapporteur on
violence against women stated that: “the argument that domestic
violence should be understood and treated as a form of torture and,

211 Nowak, Manfred, Special Rapporteur, Report on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

Or Punishment for Item 3 of the Provisional Agenda: Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Including The
Right To Development during the Seventh Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council last January 15, 2008.
386 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL 83
when less severe, ill-treatment, is one that deserves consideration by
the rapporteurs and treaty bodies that investigate these violations
together perhaps with appropriate NGO experts and jurists”. In
2000, the Human Rights Committee indicated that domestic violence can give rise
to violations of the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment under article
7 of the ICCPR. In line with this statement the Committee has
mentioned the need for States to adopt specific legislation combating
domestic violence, including legislation criminalizing marital rape.
More specifically, it has called upon States to ensure that their justice
systems incorporate restraining orders to protect women from
violent family members, provide shelters and other support to
victims, establish measures to encourage women to report domestic
violence to the authorities, and offer “material and psychological
relief to the victims.212 (Emphasis supplied)

Now more than ever, there is already a deep and insistent need for
Congress to synchronize all other laws with laws on VAW, repeal laws that
discriminate against women including the provisions in the Revised Penal
Code on Concubinage213 and Adultery,214 to ensure substantive equality of
women. Immigration law and rules must be reformed to protect abused
women who are foreigners and who are married to Filipinos, so that they
can stay in the country with their children without the signature or consent
of their abusive husbands. The Department of Labor and Employment
should compel the private sector to comply with the additional 15-day paid
leave for battered women, whether they go to court or not. The Anti-Child
Abuse Law215 should also be amended to synchronize it with the Anti-
VAWC Act and the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act.

Congress must add a specific budget for eliminating violence against

women and their children in the budget of the Philippine National Police,
the Department of Social Welfare and Development, the Department of
Justice and the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women. The
budget is significant proof of the government’s commitment to end VAW.
Congress should also have a yearly review of the implementers’ performance
before approving the budget of national agencies.

The Corporation Code and the Rules of Court should also be

reviewed in the light of violence against women cases, to enable women to
easily find conjugal assets hidden by their husbands in corporations so that
these can answer for support and other reliefs under the Anti-VAWC Act.

212Id.
213 Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, art. 334.
214Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, art. 333.
215 RA No. 7610: Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and

Discrimination, and for other Purposes.

2008] THE ANTI-VAWC ACT OF 2004 387

Philippine laws on violence against women, especially the Anti-

VAWC Act of 2004, have been praised in the international community for
being progressive because it includes, among others, a broad definition of
VAW in the context of women’s human rights, a recognition that the law is
a compliance with State Obligation under the CEDAW and other
international conventions, and for being a product of decade’s worth of
collaboration between women’s rights groups and women legislators. Thus it
reflects women’s experiences and the reliefs provided in the law are a
response to their legal needs. However, there is an immense gap between the
ideal printed in black-letter law and the gritty reality of hard and subjective
litigation. Simply put, laws may look good on paper and yet if advocates of
anti-violence against women cannot even pinpoint to a single efficient 24-
hour hotline number of law-enforcers or if lawyers who represent women
cannot convince some judges that reconciliation is simply not plausible in
cases of domestic violence, then there must be something radically wrong in
the legal and justice system. It is not enough to have a law protecting women
against domestic violence. The law must work for women. This is a call to
prevent this particularly progressive and incredibly important statute from
becoming just another institutional mechanism concerned merely with
formal compliance in order to appease the international community. At the
end of the day, it is the government and especially the Judiciary which has
the duty to ensure that women’s access to justice becomes a reality.

- o0o -