2Garcia v Drilon
9262 is based on a valid classification as such, did not violate the equal
FACTS
In 2004, Congress enacted RA No. 9262, entitled “An Act Defining Violence
Against Women and Their Children”. It defines and criminalizes acts of
violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by
women’s intimate partners, i.e., husband; former husband; or any person
who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman
has a common child. Rosalie Garcia filed, for herself and in behalf of her
minor children for a Temporary Protection Order against her husband,
Jesus C. Garcia pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of
physical abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result
of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of
custody of her children and of financial support. The husband now, assails
the constitutionality of RA 9262 as being violative of the equal protection
clause.
ISSUE: WON RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the Equal
Protection clause
RULING
R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly
situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as shall
hereinafter be discussed and, as such, did not violate the equal protection
clause by favoring women over men as victims of violence and abuse to
whom the State extends its protection.
There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the
husband or father as the culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise be
committed “against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word “person”
who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman
encompasses even lesbian relationships.
R.A.
protection clause by favoring women over men as victims of violence and
abuse to whom the State extends its protection. The unequal power
relationship between women and men; the fact that women are more
likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias
and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the
classification under the law.
The Constitution abundantly authorize Congress or the government to
actively undertake ameliorative action that would remedy existing
inequalities and inequities experienced by women and children brought
about by years of discrimination. The equal protection clause when
juxtaposed to this provision provides a stronger mandate for the
government to combat such discrimination. Indeed, these provisions order
Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities."
Notes:
The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an
absolute prohibition against classification. The non-identical treatment of
women and men under RA 9262 is justified to put them on equal footing
and to give substance to the policy and aim of the state to ensure the
equality of women and men in light of the biological, historical, social, and
culturally endowed differences between men and women.
RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection to women and
children, who are vulnerable victims of domestic violence, undoubtedly
serves the important governmental objectives of protecting human rights,
insuring gender equality, and empowering women. The gender-based
classification and the special remedies prescribed by said law in favor of
women and children are substantially related, in fact essentially necessary,
to achieve such objectives. Hence, said Act survives the intermediate
review or middle-tier judicial scrutiny. The gender-based classification
therein is therefore not violative of the equal protection clause embodied in
the 1987 Constitution.